Cost of Followers

[psyber624]

 

I was using a 100 Point Character as an example. If you say "100 Points, with 75 Points Of Complications." you have a 100 Point Character in 6E. I did nothing wrong with my math or explanation.

 

If you say "100 Points + 75 Points Of Disadvantages" in 5E you absolutely get a 175 Point character.

 

And THAT is why the distinction needs to be made, and it not merely just a different way of expressing the same thing. If you want a 175 Point Character in 6E you just say "A 175 Point Character. 75 of those Points are accounted for by Complications."

 

Right off the bat, in 6E it has simplified itself down - you know your point total in the first sentence. No further math is needed at that point to know the grand total of points characters will be built upon in 6E.

 

You haven't eliminated the math, you've just hidden it. Or converted what was an addition problem to a subtraction problem. I fail to see where that simplifies anything. Especially for new people coming into the game. I have NEVER met anyone who had a problem understanding the old way of presenting it, I have seen people fail to grasp it by the current way.

 

It remains true that

25+75 = 100

and that

100-75=25

Whether you make the equation explicit or leave it as an exercise for the reader. I don't think you can change that. If you CAN change the fundamental laws of mathematics, I urge you to go to Washington DC, Congress desperately wants to be able to spend just as much on bases and tanks and aircraft and even more every year on military pay and benefits but somehow get the total to add up to less than the sum of its parts.

 

It also bugs me that while it is still not mandatory to take the full possible value of Complications, it seems as if the intention was to create the impression that it IS mandatory. As I recall, a prospective new player reading the book doesn't know there's a choice until getting to and reading the chapter on Complications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that we're off topic

Except that in 6e you never have to do the subtraction (most don't and as you pointed out you don't even learn that its POSSIBLE to do any subtraction till the chapter on Complications). In 5e you did have to do the math (even if it was so common and so easy that most players didn't really have to think about it.)

[Lucius]

I think what ghost-angel meant to say is: "It is very importat to note (and often forgotten) that the annotaiton for Characters points have changed between 5E and 6E" (it took me a while to figure that out myself).

 

5E anotation is:

Base Points/Complication Points (leaving total points to be a mental exercise)

 

6E annotation is:

Total Points/Complication Points (leave base points to be a mental excercise)

 

Nothing with how Complications work has changed. Nothing with what Pointlevels characters belong to has changed (though the levels have gone up a bit).

The only thing that changed is how Character Points/Complications are written.

 

I think the best way would probably be

Base Points/Complication Points/Total Points

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants Noble Points and Simplification Points

 

 

[Christopher]

 

I think the best way would probably be

Base Points/Complication Points/Total Points

Personal opinion: Nobody and absolutely nobody cares for base points anymore.

 

In 5E they had thier reason to be prominent - like for the cost of Followers.

 

But in 6E every formula uses Total Ponts.

And even in 5E Base Points was a rather usleess information. Wich of these three values would you consider the least usefull for comparing Characters/getting a feel of the "Power" of a Character:

Total Points: 175

Complications: 50

Base Points: 125

 

I can not believe anyone would not say "Base Points are the least usefull of the three".

[Lucius]

Personal opinion: Nobody and absolutely nobody cares for base points anymore.

 

This is a misapprehension.

 

But in 6E every formula uses Total Ponts.

And even in 5E Base Points was a rather usleess information.

 

It was not, nor is it, useless.

 

Which of these three values would you consider the least usefull for comparing Characters/getting a feel of the "Power" of a Character:

Total Points: 175

Complications: 50

Base Points: 125

 

If you forced me to choose, I would say Complications.

 

So out of curiosity, would you say that a total point 175 character is equal to another 175 pt character, even if one has 50 points of Complicatons and the other has NO Complications?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

So is this 175 base point palindromedary really identical to this palindromedary with 125 base points and 25 points of Complications under campaign ground rules that would have permitted 50 pts of Complications?

 

 

[Christopher]

So out of curiosity' date=' would you say that a total point 175 character is equal to another 175 pt character, even if one has 50 points of Complicatons and the other has NO Complications?[/quote']

175/75 is not equal to 175/0.

You spend a lot of text to say "Complcations are the least usefull". Then you give me an example of how this values is not the least useful. I am kinda confused what your goal was, because that was saying "No" then proving that "Yes" is the only viable answer.

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Base Points" anywhere to sum them and compare them? In the current rulesset all basepoints are is Total Points-Complications. Character Base Points don't carry any ruletechnical significance. They aren't used in any other forumla or calculation.

[Lucius]

175/75 is not equal to 175/0.

You spend a lot of text to say "Complcations are the least usefull". Then you give me an example of how this values is not the least useful.

 

Uh, no, that's not what I did. More on that below.

 

I am kinda confused what your goal was' date=' because that was saying "No" then proving that "Yes" is the only viable answer.[/quote']

 

I proved no such thing. Nor have you.

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Base Points" anywhere to sum them and compare them?

 

*shrug* okay then.

 

Would you say that a total 175 pt character is equal to another 175 pt character if one has 175 base points and the other has 125 base points?

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Complications" anywhere to sum them and compare them?

 

This is just talking in circles.

 

I point out that I did say "if you force me to choose." Basically, for these purposes, Complications and Base Points are pretty close to equally useful numbers. I'd say Base Points is marginally better because if you're comparing two characters with the same Total Points, you can next look at Base Points and ask, which is the higher number? That character is putatively more effective or more powerful. So there is some justification for preferring the Base Points number. Do you have any reason to prefer to use the Complications number?

 

In any case, this is a false choice. There isn't any reason not to use the whole equation:

 

Base Points + Complications = Total Points.

 

And I see no reason to designate one of the variables "X" and leave it as "an exercise for the reader." Anyone creating a Hero character is going to be doing quite enough math as it is.

 

In the current rulesset all basepoints are is Total Points-Complications.

 

In EVERY edition, Base Points are total points - complications.

 

Complications are always total points - Base Points.

 

Total points are always Base Points plus complications.

 

This has never changed in any edition of Hero, including the current one.

 

Character Base Points don't carry any ruletechnical significance. They aren't used in any other forumla or calculation.

 

Nor are Complications used in any other formula or calculation.

 

 

My objection is not that the current edition changed how Complications (or Disadvantages if you like the former terminology) work in character creation, because they work exactly the same as always. The problem is the lack of clarity. Notice how concerned ghost-angel is that people don't make the mistake of thinking you add Complications to Total Points to get Even More Total Points. People DO make that mistake, and newbies posting here on the boards have proven that.

 

I don't believe anyone ever got confused by "You get 125 points, plus up to 50 points for Complications." Saying "You get 175 points and 50 points of Complications" opens a door to confusion that could easier have been left closed.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that the actual original problem was something else, but we've drifted far off topic

 

[ghost-angel]

I almost always notice the confusion in adding more points to the Total with Complications comes from talking with those who have been playing from previous editions, new players I've talked to have had no problem understanding Total Points w/ Matching Complications. A 300 Point Character w/ 0 Matching Complications and a 300 Point Character w/ 75 Matching Complications are both 300 Point Characters. Effectiveness, Usefullness, or Uselessness due to those Complications are a Roleplaying thing, if the GM never ever brings them up in gameplay, then they are possibly both equal - depending on how good each player is at full using those 300 Points too... so the whole argument of is one 300 Point Character equal to another 300 Points character, with or without Complications one one or both, is a mental exercise you can't resolve outside the context of the Game itself. So 6E has really said "all 300 point characters are 300 point characters, we do not need to track these so called Base Points anymore."

 

Look at it this way, in 5E you needed the Base Points, The Disadvantage Points, and the Total Points, at all times. Just in case you needed to Summon, buy a Follower, etc. You always needed to note Base Points. Did you build a 75 Point Hero with 25 Points in Disadvantages, or a 50 Point Hero with 50 Points in Disadvantages? You need to know so you know how much your Follower/Base/Vehicle/Summon Costs....

 

In 6E you only ever deal with Total Points. Once you get past character creation it doesn't matter if you had a 125 Point w/ 25 Complication Points or a 125 Point w/ 50 Complication Points character. What 6E has really done is move that math into Character Creation and left it there. Like many thing in Hero, front loading the math smooths gameplay later.

 

6E has removed a notation step, thus creating a simplification. Once you're done creating anything in the game all you need is "How many Character Points did you use?" Not, "What was the Base Point + Disadvantages for that character?"

 

Which ultimately did lead to the dilemma of the OP - Followers have gone up a bit in cost.

[bigbywolfe]

 

I was using a 100 Point Character as an example. If you say "100 Points, with 75 Points Of Complications." you have a 100 Point Character in 6E. I did nothing wrong with my math or explanation.

 

If you say "100 Points + 75 Points Of Disadvantages" in 5E you absolutely get a 175 Point character.

 

And THAT is why the distinction needs to be made, and it not merely just a different way of expressing the same thing. If you want a 175 Point Character in 6E you just say "A 175 Point Character. 75 of those Points are accounted for by Complications."

 

Right off the bat, in 6E it has simplified itself down - you know your point total in the first sentence. No further math is needed at that point to know the grand total of points characters will be built upon in 6E.

 

You haven't eliminated the math, you've just hidden it. Or converted what was an addition problem to a subtraction problem. I fail to see where that simplifies anything. Especially for new people coming into the game. I have NEVER met anyone who had a problem understanding the old way of presenting it, I have seen people fail to grasp it by the current way.

 

It remains true that

25+75 = 100

and that

100-75=25

Whether you make the equation explicit or leave it as an exercise for the reader. I don't think you can change that. If you CAN change the fundamental laws of mathematics, I urge you to go to Washington DC, Congress desperately wants to be able to spend just as much on bases and tanks and aircraft and even more every year on military pay and benefits but somehow get the total to add up to less than the sum of its parts.

 

It also bugs me that while it is still not mandatory to take the full possible value of Complications, it seems as if the intention was to create the impression that it IS mandatory. As I recall, a prospective new player reading the book doesn't know there's a choice until getting to and reading the chapter on Complications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that we're off topic

The only people I've ever seen have trouble grasping the new way was people who have played previous editions. I have seen multiple new people in the 5ER days get confused about what the total value was.

[bigbywolfe]

175/75 is not equal to 175/0.

You spend a lot of text to say "Complcations are the least usefull". Then you give me an example of how this values is not the least useful.

 

Uh, no, that's not what I did. More on that below.

 

I am kinda confused what your goal was' date=' because that was saying "No" then proving that "Yes" is the only viable answer.[/quote']

 

I proved no such thing. Nor have you.

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Base Points" anywhere to sum them and compare them?

 

*shrug* okay then.

 

Would you say that a total 175 pt character is equal to another 175 pt character if one has 175 base points and the other has 125 base points?

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Complications" anywhere to sum them and compare them?

 

This is just talking in circles.

 

I point out that I did say "if you force me to choose." Basically, for these purposes, Complications and Base Points are pretty close to equally useful numbers. I'd say Base Points is marginally better because if you're comparing two characters with the same Total Points, you can next look at Base Points and ask, which is the higher number? That character is putatively more effective or more powerful. So there is some justification for preferring the Base Points number. Do you have any reason to prefer to use the Complications number?

 

In any case, this is a false choice. There isn't any reason not to use the whole equation:

 

Base Points + Complications = Total Points.

 

And I see no reason to designate one of the variables "X" and leave it as "an exercise for the reader." Anyone creating a Hero character is going to be doing quite enough math as it is.

 

In the current rulesset all basepoints are is Total Points-Complications.

 

In EVERY edition, Base Points are total points - complications.

 

Complications are always total points - Base Points.

 

Total points are always Base Points plus complications.

 

This has never changed in any edition of Hero, including the current one.

 

Character Base Points don't carry any ruletechnical significance. They aren't used in any other forumla or calculation.

 

Nor are Complications used in any other formula or calculation.

 

 

My objection is not that the current edition changed how Complications (or Disadvantages if you like the former terminology) work in character creation, because they work exactly the same as always. The problem is the lack of clarity. Notice how concerned ghost-angel is that people don't make the mistake of thinking you add Complications to Total Points to get Even More Total Points. People DO make that mistake, and newbies posting here on the boards have proven that.

 

I don't believe anyone ever got confused by "You get 125 points, plus up to 50 points for Complications." Saying "You get 175 points and 50 points of Complications" opens a door to confusion that could easier have been left closed.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that the actual original problem was something else, but we've drifted far off topic

The problem is the lack of clarity. Notice how concerned ghost-angel is that people don't make the mistake of thinking you add Complications to Total Points to get Even More Total Points. People DO make that mistake, and newbies posting here on the boards have proven that.

I've seen more old timers make that mistake than newbies. In fact, most newbie confusion seems to come from seeing old-timers misspeak or seeing 5E stuff being posted and not understanding the differences.

[Christopher]

Would you say that a total 175 pt character is equal to another 175 pt character if one has 175 base points and the other has 125 base points?

 

See that I do not even need to mention "Complications" anywhere to sum them and compare them?

The one thing and the only thing Base Points are good for in this example is calculating the Value of Complications.

Total Points = Base Points + Complications

Base Points = Total Points - Complications

Complications = Total Points - Base Points

You just found a less usefull way to describe a 175/50 Character

 

175/50 does not requires any math to get to Total points and Complciations. They are written right there.

175 Total and 125 Base does require math in finding out that the Complications pionts. As does

 

At no point during play or character Creation in 6E does a Player need his Characters Base Points. He needs Total Points and Complications!

If you repalce either Total Points or Complication Points by Base Points all you acomplished is forcing people to calculate Total Points or Complication Points instead of just reading them.

If you name all three, Base Points aren't a information that Total Points and Complicatiosn didn't already cover.

 

Examples:

Base Points 125

Complciations 50

"Damn, why don't you give me Total Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

Total Points

Base Points

"Damn, why don't you give me the Complications Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

Total Points

Complications

"I have all the two valus I need right there and now. No math required. Yippee"

[Ninja-Bear]

 

I was using a 100 Point Character as an example. If you say "100 Points, with 75 Points Of Complications." you have a 100 Point Character in 6E. I did nothing wrong with my math or explanation.

 

If you say "100 Points + 75 Points Of Disadvantages" in 5E you absolutely get a 175 Point character.

 

And THAT is why the distinction needs to be made, and it not merely just a different way of expressing the same thing. If you want a 175 Point Character in 6E you just say "A 175 Point Character. 75 of those Points are accounted for by Complications."

 

Right off the bat, in 6E it has simplified itself down - you know your point total in the first sentence. No further math is needed at that point to know the grand total of points characters will be built upon in 6E.

 

You haven't eliminated the math, you've just hidden it. Or converted what was an addition problem to a subtraction problem. I fail to see where that simplifies anything. Especially for new people coming into the game. I have NEVER met anyone who had a problem understanding the old way of presenting it, I have seen people fail to grasp it by the current way.

 

It remains true that

25+75 = 100

and that

100-75=25

Whether you make the equation explicit or leave it as an exercise for the reader. I don't think you can change that. If you CAN change the fundamental laws of mathematics, I urge you to go to Washington DC, Congress desperately wants to be able to spend just as much on bases and tanks and aircraft and even more every year on military pay and benefits but somehow get the total to add up to less than the sum of its parts.

 

It also bugs me that while it is still not mandatory to take the full possible value of Complications, it seems as if the intention was to create the impression that it IS mandatory. As I recall, a prospective new player reading the book doesn't know there's a choice until getting to and reading the chapter on Complications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that we're off topic

Count me one that was confused in 4th and 5th editions. It took me along time to understand that when you created a character, you started with base points which are free. Then you took disadvantages which then gave you more points to spend on the character. You weren't obligated to use your disadvantage limit. (But I don't know who didn't.) 6th seems to have you build characters the way I've always built them. Build on the maximum points allowed then come up with the disadvantages needed to cover the cost.

[Lucius]

At no point during play or character Creation in 6E does a Player need his Characters Base Points. He needs Total Points and Complications!

 

Quick question: Are you under the impression that it actually IS mandatory to take the full possible value of Complications?

 

If you repalce either Total Points or Complication Points by Base Points all you acomplished is forcing people to calculate Total Points or Complication Points instead of just reading them.

If you name all three, Base Points aren't a information that Total Points and Complicatiosn didn't already cover.

 

Examples:

Base Points 125

Complciations 50

"Damn, why don't you give me Total Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

Total Points

Base Points

"Damn, why don't you give me the Complications Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

First, at the risk of repeating myself: I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding "you get X Base Points, plus up to Y points in Complications." Even people who throw their hands up after one look at Hero and say it's way too complicated don't have a problem with THAT. And as I think I've already pointed out, I have known people new to Hero to get confused by the way Complications are presented in 6th edition, and at least a couple such have come online here and started threads.

 

Second, any person who would respond as you have written, would obviously be totally helpless to add up the points from Characteristics and Skills for a character, and that's assuming you don't even let them look at the Powers section - so why are you talking about such a person? That's not a purely rhetorical question, I'm actually curious.

 

Total Points

Complications

"I have all the two valus I need right there and now. No math required. Yippee"

 

Unless I decide I don't want to take the maximum in Complications. Now I need to know what my Total Points really are.

 

If I have the Base Points given, I can add that to my total Complications and know.

 

If I have the Max Complications given, I can, let's see, subtract my actual Complications from the Max, then subtract that number from the Max Total Points, to find my character's actual Total Points. Not hard, but is anyone seriously going to say it's easier than if I had the Base Points?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if Complications actually have a point

 

[bigbywolfe]

At no point during play or character Creation in 6E does a Player need his Characters Base Points. He needs Total Points and Complications!

 

Quick question: Are you under the impression that it actually IS mandatory to take the full possible value of Complications?

 

If you repalce either Total Points or Complication Points by Base Points all you acomplished is forcing people to calculate Total Points or Complication Points instead of just reading them.

If you name all three, Base Points aren't a information that Total Points and Complicatiosn didn't already cover.

 

Examples:

Base Points 125

Complciations 50

"Damn, why don't you give me Total Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

Total Points

Base Points

"Damn, why don't you give me the Complications Points? I hate doing math in my head"

 

First, at the risk of repeating myself: I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding "you get X Base Points, plus up to Y points in Complications." Even people who throw their hands up after one look at Hero and say it's way too complicated don't have a problem with THAT. And as I think I've already pointed out, I have known people new to Hero to get confused by the way Complications are presented in 6th edition, and at least a couple such have come online here and started threads.

 

Second, any person who would respond as you have written, would obviously be totally helpless to add up the points from Characteristics and Skills for a character, and that's assuming you don't even let them look at the Powers section - so why are you talking about such a person? That's not a purely rhetorical question, I'm actually curious.

 

Total Points

Complications

"I have all the two valus I need right there and now. No math required. Yippee"

 

Unless I decide I don't want to take the maximum in Complications. Now I need to know what my Total Points really are.

 

If I have the Base Points given, I can add that to my total Complications and know.

 

If I have the Max Complications given, I can, let's see, subtract my actual Complications from the Max, then subtract that number from the Max Total Points, to find my character's actual Total Points. Not hard, but is anyone seriously going to say it's easier than if I had the Base Points?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if Complications actually have a point

Unless I decide I don't want to take the maximum in Complications. Now I need to know what my Total Points really are.

Um, no. Your Total Points are still the same, you just spent some of them to offset some of the required Complications.

 

In previous editions if someone used 15 xp to buy off a Disadvantage did you consider them to be a different point total than everyone else with the same XP but who didn't buy off a Disad?

[bigdamnhero]

Which ultimately did lead to the dilemma of the OP - Followers have gone up a bit in cost.

Which I thought was a simple enough question, unlikely to start a prolonged argument....

[Lucius]

Points spent on Characteristics + Points spent on Skills + Points spent on Talents + Points spent on Perks + Points spent on Powers = Total Points.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary doesn't see how anyone can argue with that but is certain someone will

[ghost-angel]

That's not the portion of the equation we're talking about - but it's a useless discussion at this point. If my previous explanations didn't work, no further ones will either.