Long time Hero players not liking 6e non-figured characteristics

[Lezentauw]

I am working on a FH campaign for a group of players that consists of long-time Hero players. As the title has mentioned they strongly disagree with how 6e handles characteristics. I am hoping that I can just leave 6e "as written" for the characteristics, as the change I came up with will affect aids/drains. Besides I like how simple the aids/drains works now.

 

If it is still an issue, I have come up with new costs for figured characteristics as a compromise. Let me know what you think of these new costs for the base characteristics;

 

STR = 4

DEX = 6

CON = 4

BODY = 3

INT = 2

EGO = 4

PRE = 2

 

 

 

[ghost-angel]

If the group doesn't like the decoupling of Figured Characteristics, I suggest simply going back to the 5E coupling and cost structure. And leave it at that. Adjustment Powers can easily be left at how they work in either edition.

 

If they didn't like the removal of Figured Characteristics, they probably won't like that cost structure either.

[Derek Hiemforth]

It's kind of hard to suggest a good remedy without knowing what their specific objection is to making the formerly-Figured CHAs stand-alone.

 

If it's that they like the relationships between the values of the Primaries and the Figureds in the old system, then perhaps leave the costs as standard for 6E, but make it a campaign ground rule that the formerly-Figured Characteristics must be bought to at least the level of their starting value under the old system (except one, which can be lower than that, as though it were the one CHA that you "sold back"). So for example, PD has to be at least STR/5, OCV has to be at least DEX/3, STUN has to be at least BODY+STR/2+CON/2, and so on. The costs would still look different than they did under 5E, but functionally, they'd be the same (except for the broken relationships between Figured Characteristics and other game elements that 6E fixed).

 

If it's that they don't like being able to take advantage of the cost structure of the old system, that's less easy to fix. However, it should be pointed out that -- in the end -- it really doesn't matter that much if the decoupled Figureds result in the character costing 50 more points, if the character also starts with 50 more points. After all, points ain't nuthin' but a number.

[Lucius]

If you have the 5th edition rules, the simplest solution might be to use those.

 

Most 6th edition material should be usable with little to no translation.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Limited edition palindromedary

[Lezentauw]

I have Fred, and that was the last incarnation that they have played in. So using that is not the issue. I would just prefer to stay with 6e, and sessions have been run using 6e with other groups.

 

 

 

My understanding is that they mostly object to the characteristics are no longer related together, to them that makes more sense. I will have to check to see that they are not also complaining about the cost savings of playing a stat heavy character. If that is the case, then that is another issue all together. Thank you on this call, as it is something entirely different than just figured characteristics.

 

 

 

When I came up with the new costs, they were represented by the costs of the figured characteristics as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Looking at your proposed stat costs, I would note the following (and yes, I know 30 is a lot, but it provides breakpoints for most abilities):

 

30 STR would add 30 STR (30 points), 6 PD (6 points), 6 REC (6 point) and 15 STUN (7.5 points) for a total of 49.5 points, using the 6e pricing with 5e formuli. Costing it at 4 seems extreme. STR is a bargain in a fantasy game, with all those muscle powered weapons, but 2 points would increase the price of “raw STR” a bit and 3 would bump it up quite a bit. I’d say 4 is excessive.

 

30 DEX would provide +30 DEX (60), +10 OCV (50), +10 DCV (50) and +3 SPD (30) for a total 190 points of value. 6 is a bit high, but not much. I’d be inclined to go with 5, but I think DEX should have been priced to match INT and PRE in 6e. With you raising INT and PRE to 2 points, DEX with no figured at 2 points seems equitable. Each enhances a set of skills and provides a further effect. [ASIDE: I’m also inclined to move the defense aspects of PRE to EGO under this model.]

 

30 CON provides +30 CON (30), 6 ED (6 points), 6 REC (6 point), 60 END (6 points) and 15 STUN (7.5 points), so 53.5. Again, 4 points seems vastly excessive.

 

30 EGO bumps EGO 30 (30 points), mOCV 10 (30) and mDCV 30 (30), so I see 90 points of value, and a 3 point cost. Again, your cost seems high.

 

INT and PRE – you’ve doubled the cost without adding any new abilities. However, I think INT and PRE are undercosted compared to buying the abilities separately, and this makes them consistent with 2 points for “DEX no Figured”.

 

No Figured should be dumped, in my view, and just tell the players they can sell figured’s back on an unlimited basis, assuming it fits concept. You may want to note that, given their reasons for not wanting Figured dumped, it seems likely sellbacks would be very uncommon.

 

It seems that your costs don’t just price for figured, but raise costs across the board. I would not expect the players to be thrilled with this model. One thing this exercise always seems to demonstrate is what a huge bargain DEX was pre-6e. That assumes we accept OCV and DCV are worth 5 points each, but a lot of people happily bought 5 point DCV levels in prior editions.

 

[Derek Hiemforth]

One thing this exercise always seems to demonstrate is what a huge bargain DEX was pre-6e.

Indeed. It was the most cost-effective thing you could possibly purchase, and -- although I would never advocate sacrificing character concept for cost-effectiveness -- I would say that if you didn't push up your DEX as high as your character concept could possibly allow, you were a sucker...

[Lezentauw]

After looking at Hugh's figures, I relooked at mine. I noticed that I must of used 5e costs in some areas. I went about figuring out what everything would cost, much in line for what you get for DEX in 6e in paying 2 cp now.

 

So here is my latest version, if we end up using figured characteristics again:

STR = 3

DEX = 6

BODY = 3

CON = 3

EGO = 4

INT = 2

PRE = 2

 

Or I could see the argument for slightly reduced costs such as:

STR = 2

DEX = 5

BODY = 2

CON = 2

EGO = 3

INT = 1

PRE = 1

[Derek Hiemforth]

I dunno... While your costs seem reasonable enough, I'm not sure I see the point (no pun intended). If it's the value relationships your players liked pre-6, you can do that without changing 6E costs by just enforcing the same value relationships. If it's the cost relationships your players liked pre-6, they won't like your costs either.

[IndianaJoe3]

Looking at your proposed stat costs' date=' I would note the following (and yes, I know 30 is a lot, but it provides breakpoints for most abilities): 30 STR would add 30 STR (30 points), 6 PD (6 points), 6 REC (6 point) and 15 STUN (7.5 points) for a total of 49.5 points, using the 6e pricing with 5e formuli.[/quote']

 

You forgot Leaping.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Looking at your proposed stat costs' date=' I would note the following (and yes, I know 30 is a lot, but it provides breakpoints for most abilities): 30 STR would add 30 STR (30 points), 6 PD (6 points), 6 REC (6 point) and 15 STUN (7.5 points) for a total of 49.5 points, using the 6e pricing with 5e formuli.[/quote'] You forgot Leaping.

 

True - that makes it 52.5, not a lot easier to work with. Although it is exactly 1.75 points per +1 STR, I doubt many of us would like that pricing.

 

I also forgot BOD and pooched the END cost for CON. CON should be 56.5, so 2 points per doesn't seem out of line.

 

BOD would be 1.5 for +1 BOD and +1 STUN, so 3 points is twice what it's worth.

 

In the leadup to 6e, there were lots of discussions on revisiting the costs to get Primary + Secondary to the right price, but the end result is very expensive primaries, very high "no figured's" limitations and either something is still a bargain (whether buying a high primary or buying the primary with No Figured and buying up the secondaries) or the cost is perfect, so the same as having no figured across the board and buying up the secondaries directly.

 

My solution? You automatically buy the secondaries up to where the primaries would put them, if the relationship is viewed as that important. And if only the relationship, and not the costs, are at issue, that should resolve the matter.

[Lucius]

Not necessarily. One could balance the costs by reducing the costs of secondary, rather than increasing the cost of primary, characteristics.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reports that we now seem to be able to post.

[Killer Shrike]

I still don't get why people get hung up on this. The figured characteristics model was simply broken, mathematically. The 6e approach is much more mechanically consistent and balanced.

 

That isn't a subjective opinion, it is objectively demonstrable with simple math that anyone should be able to understand.

 

Thus when people say "I prefer figured characteristics", what I hear is "I don't understand math" or "I don't care about balanced game mechanics".

[concord]

it is a bit of a thought process change, but I like 6E where all characteristics are purchased better than the older editions... and I have been playing since 1st edition...

[Kaze9999]

it is a bit of a thought process change, but I like 6E where all characteristics are purchased better than the older editions... and I have been playing since 1st edition...

Me too. I just wish it sold well enough to justify retail conversions of all the old 5th edition stuff. 5th edition is close enough that you technically don't have to do much conversion, but stilll.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Thus when people say "I prefer figured characteristics"' date=' what I hear is "I don't understand math" or "I don't care about balanced game mechanics". [/quote']

 

Mostly the latter, I suspect. After all, most people for whom the former was true probably wouldn't be playing Hero in the first place...

[Greywind]

Figureds were part of the system's flavor.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I can't see how something's cost could be part a system's flavor. So I presume you must be talking not about how many points they cost, but about their relationship to the Primary Characteristics. And there's nothing in 6E that says you can't keep that if you like it. You're just no longer required to enforce that particular "flavor" if you don't like it, or if it doesn't fit for a particular character.

 

Detaching Figureds from Primaries makes the game more flexible. Personally, I can't see increasing flexibility as a negative thing, especially for Hero.

[SteveZilla]

I am working on a FH campaign for a group of players that consists of long-time Hero players. As the title has mentioned they strongly disagree with how 6e handles characteristics. I am hoping that I can just leave 6e "as written" for the characteristics' date=' as the change I came up with will affect aids/drains. Besides I like how simple the aids/drains works now. If it is still an issue, I have come up with new costs for figured characteristics as a compromise. Let me know what you think of these new costs for the base characteristics; STR = 4 DEX = 6 CON = 4 BODY = 3 INT = 2 EGO = 4 PRE = 2 [/quote']

 

You could always work up several "Package Deals", each containing fixed amounts of certain "Primary" and "Figured" Characteristics, Powers and Skill Levels as needed (using 6e prices). Bingo! 6e can simulate many other game systems, including 5e!

[Killer Shrike]

Figureds were part of the system's flavor.

 

You are of course welcome to your opinion.

 

However, that would be like saying my 2012 tax return had less "flavor" than my 2011 tax return.

 

The point cost of abilities in the HERO System is an accounting mechanism to enforce finite resource management, with costs putatively defined in such a way as to similarly value equivalently useful abilities, to thus serve as a means of roughly measuring "balance".

 

Last I checked they don't serve that "flavor" at baskin robbins.

[Nolgroth]

They don't!?! That's why I haven't been to Baskin Robbins in such a long time.

 

You know, I really wish I had something to say on this topic that hasn't already been said. I mean, if I were the GM and my players were resistant to non-Figured Characteristics, I would offer to run D&D Essentials, Pathfinder, or Shadowrun instead. I may even be convinced to step back to Hero 5th. Whichever way I went, I'd let my players know that I am not going to massively redesign the game on top of all the prep work that goes into actually running a campaign. But that's just me. I'm crazy that way.

[Killer Shrike]

The differences between 5e and 6e hardly qualify as "massive redesign". The majority of the differences are superficial at best, and the decoupling of stats is basically just an accounting change.

 

If I were the GM (I am), and my players were resistant to non-figured characteristics (they haven't been), I would simply take pity on their apparent lack of mathematical ability and point out that if they really want to they have the option on an individual character by character basis to enforce that particular limitation on themselves. They wont benefit from the broken free points recursions of course, but y'know...if it makes them feel better and all to "figure" their "secondaries" they can go right on ahead and do so.

 

The way I see it removing the recursive point factories that figureds made possible from the game was a bug fix. Some may have gotten used to exploiting the bug and cried about having it removed, but it was a correction that was a long time coming.

 

I just wish that Steve had been consistent and made DEX cost 1:1, using the side bar option to divorce DEX from initiative.

 

I also think all the CV's (OCV / DCV / OMCV / DMCV) should have been defaulted to 0 starting. They all resist each other across a base 11- roll anyway; nothing would have changed mechanically and it would have avoided the weirdness of characters with no mental powers having points sunk in OMCV, and would have undercut the current problem with the pricing of CSL's now that OCV and DCV are 5 points each.

[Greywind]

Figureds were part of the system's flavor.

You are of course welcome to your opinion.

Figureds survived five iterations of the rules. The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries, regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system. Whether or not some people didn't like the accounting discrepancy has no bearing.

 

[Nolgroth]

The differences between 5e and 6e hardly qualify as "massive redesign". The majority of the differences are superficial at best, and the decoupling of stats is basically just an accounting change.

 

If I were the GM (I am), and my players were resistant to non-figured characteristics (they haven't been), I would simply take pity on their apparent lack of mathematical ability and point out that if they really want to they have the option on an individual character by character basis to enforce that particular limitation on themselves. They wont benefit from the broken free points recursions of course, but y'know...if it makes them feel better and all to "figure" their "secondaries" they can go right on ahead and do so.

 

The way I see it removing the recursive point factories that figureds made possible from the game was a bug fix. Some may have gotten used to exploiting the bug and cried about having it removed, but it was a correction that was a long time coming.

 

I just wish that Steve had been consistent and made DEX cost 1:1, using the side bar option to divorce DEX from initiative.

 

I also think all the CV's (OCV / DCV / OMCV / DMCV) should have been defaulted to 0 starting. They all resist each other across a base 11- roll anyway; nothing would have changed mechanically and it would have avoided the weirdness of characters with no mental powers having points sunk in OMCV, and would have undercut the current problem with the pricing of CSL's now that OCV and DCV are 5 points each.

By "massive redesign" I was referring to the OP. The way Lezentauw was trying to reinvent the coupling thing. That's just too much of a headache on top of everything else. Now, if Lezentauw wants to recouple the stats differently because it is his idea and part of the concept he is running, I'm all for it. The way I read it though, is that his players are just being difficult.

 

And the default to 0 (for CV) thing is brilliant. I am so going to steal that soon-ish.

[Derek Hiemforth]

The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries' date=' regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system.[/quote']

 

And if you like the relationship, you're still free to use it. It's just not inherent anymore, so you're not required to use it. I still haven't seen anyone give a reason why removing that requirement is a bad thing...