7th Edition thoughts

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah until DEX was separated from CV, it was just super efficient to buy it up to 23 even on characters that didn't really fit.  You'd have bricks with the agility of a gymnast and kung fu master, because nobody likes to miss.

[Scott Baker]

Yeah until DEX was separated from CV, it was just super efficient to buy it up to 23 even on characters that didn't really fit.  You'd have bricks with the agility of a gymnast and kung fu master, because nobody likes to miss.

All of my bricks are gymnast kung fu masters.

[Grailknight]

There are some things I want changed. I want Transfer brought back. I want Damage Negation removed. I want Growth fixed, because it doesn't fit neatly into five or ten point blocks anymore, and that's a big problem for me. Shrinking needs to be more expensive. It's a huge DCV boost for a pittance of points. It is now the most effective power pound for pound in the game. Plus, when you look at the metalevel with growth, there's a problem with the simplest characters who only have the power to change their size. Aid also needs to be more expensive. If it costs about 15 points to take someone's energy and give that to yourself, it should cost about the same amount of points to boost up, if not more. Most of these issues revolve around additional time taken to resolve combat or getting away with too much for limited amounts of points.

 

Shrinking is a tough call. Unless you give it more benefits(shudder) then it can't compete with just buying +2 DCV  for 10 points. Growth .... has issues and needs a complete rewrite but that has been the case with every edition.

 

I hated the 6th version of transfer at first but have changed my mind on it( figured characteristics and comeliness also) It's complicated but being able to have variation between return and retention rates is worth it.

 

I've never had a problem with Aid that wasn't fixed by keeping the old rule that the grantor had to keep points allocated to it or it went away. 

 

Keep your filthy hands away from my Damage Negation! 

 

I could do without HA(change rather than abolish) and CON could be done away with fairly easily. ( Character is stunned if he takes damage exceeding 1/2 his STUN Characteristic from a single attack, use BODY for AVAD Mental Powers )

 

I want Megascale to be +1/2 for 10x and go up from there.

 

I want Negative Characteristics back (with no silliness about negative your unmodified Characteristic)

 

Bring back Characteristic Maxima if for no other reason than campaign guidelines. 

[Hyper-Man]

We're almost to the point where it would make better sense to include ALL the variant options mentioned in this thread and have GM's Campaign level rule version of Hero Designer that allows the GM to set his campaign specific rules for character creation  (For this game, HA works this way, X works that way, etc...).  Snowball's chance of happening of course (likely a nightmare to code) but it would give Game Masters the same footing as players in making the rules easier to adapt to the game THEY want to run (the same way that the current rules allow players to make the character THEY want).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would like to see Megascale set to +1/2 then a +1/2 to make it variable (in other words, back to the "if its megascale, its always megascale" as the base, rather than the always variable as the base modifier).  You could always set different rates to Transfer, it just took a bit of math.  The present system requires a huge block of text to do exactly what the old power did, and that's not a step in the right direction for me.  Negative Characteristics were a really good system that gave interesting possibilities to the system that are now not usable any longer, I agree with bringing them back.

 

Aid is fine the way it is.  Its very expensive to make it long term, which means you're burning up a phase or two each combat just to get the benefits. That's a good trade off.  I have no opinion on the cost of Shrinking but I suspect the DCV bonus is offset by the other penalties.

[Tasha]

I LIKE Damage Negation. It's an easy mechanic for GM's to use for such things as "Archaic weapons do less damage to Modern Armor"  or "Mechagodzilla is so huge your puny attacks do less damage against his size". It also works well for "Mundane weapons don't really damage supers".

I also used it as a campaign idea. "The alien tech made superhero attacks ignorable" (-10d6 Damage Negation), campaign was also working on the whole "Mundane weapons don't damage supers" (-5d6 Damage Negation). The PC's recieved a bit of tech early on that made them immune to the Alien tech.

I understand why Bala, hates Damage Negation in the hands of players. It is a weird mechanic to tell people to roll fewer dice of damage. I personally disallow DN as a PC usable power. I have gently steered players into buying 3rDef per D6 of wished for Damage Negation. It nearly does the same thing and keeps the PC's mechanics the same.

[Tasha]

Since DCV is 5pts per +1, 6pts per level of Shrinking seems reasonable esp since you lose mass and gain many limits for being very small. I don't believe that one can do the growth moveby (Velocity damage from growing up below someone) anymore.

I do miss Transfer, it's one of those abilities that should have never been removed IMHO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Definitely.

 

To start with I'd like the system to place equal emphasis on both Combat and Non-Combat interactions; starting with dropping the cost of DEX to 1:1 to bring it in line with the rest of the Characteristics. The system currently artificially inflates the importance of combat ability by making it cost more. The number of DEX based skills over PRE based is not enough to make it cost twice as much either.

 

I agree with a more robust "skill challenge" system.  In some games, Combat could be reduced to simple skill vs skill rolls - for example, a medical drama, a courtroom drama, a Sherlock Holmes style detective game or a game of political intrigue in the King's Court.  None of these benefit from long, involved combats and a single roll to resolve the main conflict.

 

Keep comliness out. You can't count on players to not do things that defy intelligence. You have to look at the other stats and how they scale. There isn't a guy in the world who won't give a stupidly pretty girl whatever information they need for free, and you can't have a stat that substitutes just being pretty for every social skill in the game. (But I'm 64 times as beautiful as aphrodite, why can't I just smile at him and get him to tell me?) That's why they removed comliness. People weren't buying skills.

 

Really?  Pretty girls just get whatever they want by batting their eyelashes?  This seems at odds with the fact that the world's wealthiest, most powerful and influential people under-represent, rather than over-represent, women.  Are you saying a pretty girl in your game can have any power she wants for her character, with no regard for the balance considerations you would impose on other players?

 

Comeliness was removed because it had no separate mechanics from other characteristics.  It has been, at most, limited PRE.  Steve was pretty clear that was the reason it had to go, in his mind, during the SETAC discussions.  I liked COM, but I agree with his analysis.  And I'd expect someone with a 70 COM to get benefits equivalent to a 30 point investment in other abilities.

 

I'm curious what a detailed simulation model for social interaction would be. Combat is largely driven by the underlying physics of physical force and resistance (which can appear in a dizzying array of forms, especially in a superhero or fantasy context). It is an inherently complex activity with lots at stake (often your character's very life!). Most social interaction is not, which is why nobody bothers to construct more complex/detailed mechanics for it.

 

I think persuading the King you should not be beheaded, curing a fatal plague, avoiding a death sentence or life with no parole for 75 years or persuading a Sci Fi government not to bomb your planet back to the Stone Age can all be stakes just as high as combat.  And, just as complex a resolution.

 

It seems to me that social interaction rules would take the roleplay out of the interactions, not enhance it.

 

I role play in combat.  Why would I not role play in interactions with a more robust mechanical structure?

 

In my games I use social interaction rules when needed, but the bonuses or penalties I give the player to his characters rolls is based off of effort not efficiency.

 

So the introvert who is trying hard to work out of his comfort zone would get a +3 while the extrovert who is casually using his real life skill may get no bonus at all.

I find it works well because if Mr Introvert has a right to be rewarded for his efforts even if he is not convincing me. After all I do not penalize the warrior for his player's lack of fighting skills.

 

Likewise though I reward players in combat who describe their characters action well. While if the player says "I hit him with My sword" will find he suffers no bonus at all until he spices up or game for us.

 

It works really well on both systems and doors not require complex rules only a little GM fiat.

 

My bias is that the bonus available for player effort, skill and tactics in a non-combat situation should be comparable to the bonus available for similar effort, skill and tactics in a combat situation.  A +3 bonus is pretty hard to come by in combat, at least in most games I've played, and a +3 bonus to a single attack roll doesn't have nearly the same impact on ultimate success as a +3 bonus to a single roll which will either succeed or fail overall in the task the character is attempting.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think blast/HA and killing attacks could be reduced to simplicity;

 

Killing Attack, 15 pts per d6: must take either "strength adds damage" or "ranged"

Normal Attack: 5 pts per d6: see above.

 

This would streamline things a bit and eliminate the "HTA loophole" which pointlessly makes the real cost of HTA cheaper than blast.

 

Under this model, does the price of STR rise, does STR give less than 1d6 normal damage per +5 STR, or does STR get normal damage plus a bunch of other freebies?

 

I could definitely go for eliminating HA from the game in its present form. 

 

If it were ruled as a power with no range that STR adds to and cost 5 points per die, I'm good with it. It simulates bludgeoning weapons and will be limited by focus in most uses.

 

If it is just limited STR then why bother with the power, use limited STR.

 

It IS limited STR.  It gets +1d6 of normal HTH damage, and lacks the remaining benefits of STR.  Why should the concept of a guy with natural "brass knuckles" costs the same as a guy with the same damage and more benefits from higher STR?  So let's just use limited STR!

 

 

Killing Attacks were a particular issue when Steve went into things with 6th Ed; one thing he wanted to do was completely disassociate STR damage from KA (As in, STR no longer added to them).

 

I was against this at the time. Now, I'm not sure he was wrong. Either way, I think the cost comparison between Norma and Killing Attacks versus Strength is now off due to the system assumption of 5 Points = 1 Damage Class as an underlying idea.

 

I've always been under the opinion that it was STR that was priced wrong, doubly so in the days of Figured Characteristics. If DEX is worth 2 Points for +1 just due to going first, then STR should also be 2 for 1 based on Damage and all the other things it does.

 

But then "bricks become expensive" and all that crap. An argument I've never really bought into. It's a legacy issue, and a bad one.

 

In respect of KA's, I would agree with removing damage added from STR.  I can't boost Entangles, Flash, Drain or Mind Control with STR.  I can't boost any attack power with a characteristic other than STR.  Why is HKA the lone exception?  Weapon builds can be complex - we don't build them that way in point-based games anyway.  So if fantasy weapons are constructed as "5 DC KA with no range, +5 DC, only 1 DC per 5 STR over 8", who cares?  That's the current impact of a 1 1/2dk HKA weapon with an 8 point STR MIN now.  This might stimulate some variety in weapons as well.  Maybe some weapons make leveraging STR easier (+1 DC per 4 STR over STR min) while others make it harder (it takes 7.5 STR to get an extra DC).

 

In a Supers game, if I want 4d6 of KA with no range, it then costs 60 points (12 DC KA x 5)/1.5 for No Range = 40 points.  It does not have a variable cost depending on whether I have 10, 30 or 50 STR.

 

This issue, as I see it, is that if PRE, INT and STR are worth 1:1 then DEX is too and hit was a horrible mistake to price it higher, just wrong on levels I can't express in words.

 

But, if you leave STR at 1:1 then you have to accept that if 5 Points = +1 Damage Class, i.e. 1D6 Normal Damage Attack that STR is just slightly under priced as a Characteristic, move past the disconnect, and remove that completely unwarranted "mandatory Limitation" reduce "Blast" to Normal Attack, that either Adds Strength or Has Range, giving you two basic Attack ideals: Normal Attack, Killing Attack, each one priced correctly at 5 Points per Damage Class. That STR then becomes over powered leaves it to the table to Build To Concept and deal with it.

 

Which I'm perfectly fine with, but that means the 60 STR Superstrong Brick likely has more bang for the buck over the "Very skilled, but Normal Characteristic Level Martial Artists" who bought "Qi Punch: +xD6 Normal Hand Attack" - gains the same level of damage, one has lift and a roll to go with it.

 

It's a legacy issue that will never be adequately statisfied...

 

Well, there is one way: STR doesn't do Damage, everyone gets 2D6 Normal Hand To Hand Damage for free.

 

I think we've established that removing HTH from STR is far from universally satisfactory. 

 

As I see it, DEX, INT and PRE each provide a bundle of benefits including enhancing some skills.  They should be worth the same.  I'm not sold that they are worth 1 point each.  Maybe they are worth 2 each, and +1 with every skill based on one stat is worth 5 points.  We can then make the enhanced initiative of DEX cost 1 point per +1 in initiative order, price PRE attacks at 5 points per 1d6 and price perception at +1/5 points.  Make PRE defense equal to EGO, and price it at 2 PRE DEF/1 point.  +2 EGO rolls costs 5 points, and EGO stays a 1 point stat. 

 

Then we assess whether STR gets repriced at 2 points as well, how much of STR is for HTH combat, and how much of that is for raw damage alone.

 

The "Why not just go with Limited Strength" question is EXACTLY why HtH Attack has the limitation on Blast. Because otherwise people WOULD just take Strength and limit it to (Only for damage, not for lifting, throwing etc).

 

Good.  So +5 STR, only impacts effect of one group of combat maneuvers (martial or non-martial) gets set at -1/4, and you can keep your MA DC's, or buy non-martial DC's.  For -1/2, your STR only adds to direct damage, at 1 HTH DC per +5 STR.  STR that does no damage, but grants all other STR functions is a -2 limitation (+15 STR, only adds to direct damage costs 10 points, and +10 STR that does everything but direct damage costs 5).  Or price STR at 2 points, and develop appropriate limitations to only have the desired components. 

 

Mutants and Masterminds has STR, and "Super-STR" that provides everything but direct damage.  Maybe that's our model, so +1d6 HTH damage costs 5 points and +5 STR for all non-direct damage purposes costs 5 points.  Now, a MA DC needs to cost more than 4, since it enhances more than direct damage.

 

Yeah but that's easy enough to fix, just say "you can't do that."  As in STR can't be bought only for damage in the rules.  Sort of like how you can't buy a "self only" limitation on healing, even though it technically does limit the power.

 

Like we used to prohibit selling back more than one figured characteristic because they weren't costed in a balanced manner?  If we have to prohibit a construct which fits the mechanical rule, this shows me that some element of those rules is unbalanced.

 

Its basic consistency with the way the system works.  Its a +1/2 advantage to either have range or add strength damage to an attack.  Except with HTA where it gets this pointless limitation.

 

If people are really that concerned maybe a 7th edition should make strength not do raw damage at all; add to damage to things like weapons, but no straight up damage.  Strength then would only be lifting and STR exertion rolls, and people would have a base 2d6 attack and have to buy HTA to do more.

 

No, it is not.  I cannot decide that my Drain, Entangle, Mental Blast or Flash will have no range but get DC's added for STR.  Only the KA power allows me this option.  Why?  It is an orphan mechanic and should be removed.  KA costs 15 points and is ranged.  You want a KA that has no range, put "no range" on it.  You want a no range KA that does more damage because you are very strong, buy more KA.  That's what the guy whose precise targeting and high DEX allows him to do more damage does.  You want the damage to decline if your STR (or DEX) is reduced?  Unified power.

 

I've been a Hero System player since 2nd edition and I don't recall running into characters that had high STR and DEX and Adjustment powers "for no reason", mostly because GMs.

 

Are we blaming the system for not doing the GM's job again?

 

If the system allows a concept which supports high STR, high DEX and adjustment powers to be more cost-effective, I consider the system flawed.  Pre-6e, a character with an 8 DEX was far too expensive to be workable (except a mentalist, I suppose).  Now, a low-DEX combat skilled character can be constructed with an equitable point cost.  IMO, this is a vast improvement.  But maybe regarding "character concepts should be balanced against one another, so one concept does not enjoy a clear advantage or even superiority" is a gaming style thing.  *shrug*

 

The average Dexterity across all published 5th Edition Superhero Characters is 20. If it crept up from all the published 4th Ed characters, it couldn't have been by much.

 

Not sure of the averages, but Hero 1e setting the "typical" Super at 23 - 26, the slow Super at 18 - 20 and the agile martial artist at 30 - 35 laid the groundwork.  It was not revisited when it was decided "normal humans" rarely exceeded 20, and never exceeded 30.  If 1e set the slow Super at DEX 5, average at 10 - 11, and agile Martial Artists had 20 - 23, we'd still be using those levels today.  And slow Supers would be 1 or 2 CV back of the average, while agile MA's would be 3 or 4 ahead of the average - pretty much the same as with every Super having inflated DEX.

 

There are some things I want changed. I want Transfer brought back. I want Damage Negation removed. I want Growth fixed, because it doesn't fit neatly into five or ten point blocks anymore, and that's a big problem for me. Shrinking needs to be more expensive. It's a huge DCV boost for a pittance of points. It is now the most effective power pound for pound in the game. Plus, when you look at the metalevel with growth, there's a problem with the simplest characters who only have the power to change their size. Aid also needs to be more expensive. If it costs about 15 points to take someone's energy and give that to yourself, it should cost about the same amount of points to boost up, if not more. Most of these issues revolve around additional time taken to resolve combat or getting away with too much for limited amounts of points.

 

Why do we need Transfer back?  If he had Aid and Drain in 1e, would we ever have had a separate Transfer, rather than linked Drain and Aid, Self Only?

 

I dislike removal of mechanical options - you can choose not to use Damage Negation, and those who like it can use it.  If it's removed, you can still run your game without it, but those who find it useful cannot include it in their games.

 

Growth could stand a rework, but you can also buy component parts to create intermediate steps, or have each different size be a different Multiform.  I don't find Shrinking a gamebreaker, or even a game damager.

 

The 6e pricing of Aid started with the theory that Self Only Aid should cost less than buying the maximum Aid amount so it's always on and requires no attack actions.  Do you disagree with that logic?  I suspect the real problem is combinations of slow fade rates which permit the enhanced abilities to become powers that are usable by others.  Perhaps a revisitation of costing should compare that as well.  Some duration makes the Aid the same as allowing the power to be UBO with no automatic shutoff.

[Steve]

I'm curious now. How much of SETAC's input ended up being used in 6th versus Steve Long's vision of how things should work? Would anyone who was in SETAC care to share their opinion?

[Hugh Neilson]

I think Steve had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to see overall, and he was clear from the outset that he wanted SETAC to restrict discussion to topics he requested, and end discussions when he ended them. With those parameters, there were a lot of changes we didn't have any input towards.  On those items where input was requested, I don't know that he had as much of a vision, and he was interested in comments received.  I think some things changed, but it's been a while so I can't recall with certainty.  I doubt 10% of the rules came up for discussion, though.  Steve had a pretty good sense where he wanted most of the rules to head.

[Chris Goodwin]

I would do this:
 
First:  STR at 2 per point.
 
Next:  Flip by 90 degrees the "axis" between HA/B and HKA/RKA.  There are now two attack Powers: Hand-to-hand Attack (HA) and Blast (B ).  They both cost 5 points per DC, and you define at the time whether your attack is Normal or Killing, the same as you define whether it's Physical or Energy.  (Bonus:  the abbreviation for Hand-to-hand Attack, Killing becomes HAK.)  The only difference between HAN and HAK is that the latter is Killing; the only difference between BN and BK is that the latter is Killing.  
 
The (again, optional) rules for adding damage:  The HA Power can't add more than your base STR damage in DC, whether it's Normal or Killing.  There becomes an additional "all other bonuses" category, between Skill Levels, Maneuvers, etc., that also can't add more than your base damage in DC.  
 
The character with 30 STR (40 points) and 2d6 HAK (30 points) would then have 4d6, having spent a total of 70 points.  If not using the optional rule, the guy with 10 STR and 3d6+1 HAK (50 points) would then have 4d6 as well, having spent a total of 50 points.  
 
Hugh and ghost-angel, I'm particularly interested in your input on this.

[Grailknight]

I would do this:

 

First:  STR at 2 per point.

 

Next:  Flip by 90 degrees the "axis" between HA/B and HKA/RKA.  There are now two attack Powers: Hand-to-hand Attack (HA) and Blast (B ).  They both cost 5 points per DC, and you define at the time whether your attack is Normal or Killing, the same as you define whether it's Physical or Energy.  (Bonus:  the abbreviation for Hand-to-hand Attack, Killing becomes HAK.)  The only difference between HAN and HAK is that the latter is Killing; the only difference between BN and BK is that the latter is Killing.  

 

The (again, optional) rules for adding damage:  The HA Power can't add more than your base STR damage in DC, whether it's Normal or Killing.  There becomes an additional "all other bonuses" category, between Skill Levels, Maneuvers, etc., that also can't add more than your base damage in DC.  

 

The character with 30 STR (40 points) and 2d6 HAK (30 points) would then have 4d6, having spent a total of 70 points.  If not using the optional rule, the guy with 10 STR and 3d6+1 HAK (50 points) would then have 4d6 as well, having spent a total of 50 points.  

 

Hugh and ghost-angel, I'm particularly interested in your input on this.

 

I can get behind this if STR is 1 point per point. I think that the lifting and carrying is being overvalued here. 

[zslane]

If the system allows a concept which supports high STR, high DEX and adjustment powers to be more cost-effective, I consider the system flawed.

The complaint wasn't that STR and DEX were too cost-effective, but that players were buying them up for no reason (and I agree that "because it is cheap to do so" does not constitute a good reason). In any decently run campaign, the GM will basically tell the players that it doesn't matter how few points STR or DEX may cost, if their character concepts don't justify the high values, they don't get to buy them that high. And if their concepts do justify the higher values, then the fact that they cost fewer points than they could (with a different cost formula) is largely irrelevent to this particular complaint. Said characters might have a few more points to spend somewhere else, but they won't have excessively high STR and DEX for no reason.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think its just cleaner to drop damage from Strength and leave it only at exertion and lifting capacity.  Then 1 point per STR is fine and there's no more "but HTA is Str" nonsense, and you can drop the silly "limitation just so its cheaper" thing.

[Chris Goodwin]

I think its just cleaner to drop damage from Strength and leave it only at exertion and lifting capacity.  Then 1 point per STR is fine and there's no more "but HTA is Str" nonsense, and you can drop the silly "limitation just so its cheaper" thing.

 

This was one of the things that was so frustrating in SETAC.  Pretty much every other game out there combines Strength and damage; pulling them apart would be the last straw for a lot of folks.  That particular discussion was pretty contentious, but I don't think any of us even half-seriously floated this idea.  

 

Edit:  That may have come across as a lot more contentious than I meant.  As an idea, it's sound and worthy enough of consideration, but it really is a bridge too far IMO.

[Chris Goodwin]

I can get behind this if STR is 1 point per point. I think that the lifting and carrying is being overvalued here. 

 

Part of the issue is that the damage alone is worth 5 points per DC.  I can't think of any way to value 2x carrying capacity other than at 5 points; we've got numerous other instances in the system where 5 points doubles something.  

 

The only way I can see to make it worth the cost is to bump STR to 2 per point.  I'd add a note to make it optionally 1 per point in superheroic games and in games where HAKs (I just love that so much!) are uncommon, but then you still run into the problem with HAN needing to have the -1/2 freebie to make it work out.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't think you should completely divorce strength from damage, only from free punchies. 

 

If you define strength as doing no innate damage - only adding to other damage like weapons and HKA or HTA for example - and then define all characters as having a 2d6 normal attack, I think it might be tolerable.  That way people who say they hit really hard because they can lift a truck can buy HTA dice or martial arts.  You can be really, really strong and not hit all that hard because your strength is all in being able to lift stuff.  Yes, almost always if you are built like a bodybuilder, you're going to hit really hard, but that's a small sacrifice to make the system more streamlined.

 

I'd certainly take it over what you suggested as a change, at least.

[Lucius]

As far as linking STR to damage goes:

 

Yes, it's a widespread assumption in games, and yes, the reason it's widespread is because it's so "common sense."

 

But the link between DEX and Combat Value (whatever it's called in a any given game) is also widespread and for the same reason.

 

If one violation of common sense is "a bridge too far" then so is the other.

 

 

I have to admit to being ambivalent now about Figured Characteristics and other manifestations of what I call the dynamic or organic model - the assumption that various elements of a character interact rather than being isolated inert building blocks.

 

In some ways it IS simpler to work with the building block paradigm. And then again, it isn't, when I have to explain to a player "No, a high DEX doesn't make it harder to hit you, you have to buy DCV for that."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is in two minds on the subject

[Grailknight]

Part of the issue is that the damage alone is worth 5 points per DC.  I can't think of any way to value 2x carrying capacity other than at 5 points; we've got numerous other instances in the system where 5 points doubles something.  

 

The only way I can see to make it worth the cost is to bump STR to 2 per point.  I'd add a note to make it optionally 1 per point in superheroic games and in games where HAKs (I just love that so much!) are uncommon, but then you still run into the problem with HAN needing to have the -1/2 freebie to make it work out.  

 

First off, extra carrying and lifting capacity just doesn't come up enough to be worth making it a cost factor in STR.  Even at as small a limitation as -1/4, STR no lift would be bought far more commonly than it appears in genre and no matter much you discount STR lift only, people will only buy it in frameworks. I'd rather expand the Hoist skill to allow greater  carrying and lifting. I'd also be fine with DEX  at 1 per point.

 

Secondly,since the point of new editions(and therefore this thread) are to improve the game and game sales, we should unify design for the main market of the game which I feel is Champions. Any rules options should therefore use superheroic as the default and heroic as options. Your HAN power would be fine at 5 points per DC in supers. ( Yes, its not as good as STR but neither are Growth or Density Increase and Martial Arts DC's are better than STR. We've lived with these imbalances since 4th.) The main offenses of STR and DEX went away with Figured Characteristics.

[mhd]

Yes, it's a widespread assumption in games, and yes, the reason it's widespread is because it's so "common sense."

On the other hand, it seems increasingly common to have dexterity as another source for damage, often requiring special weaponry. This happens frequently in games that have no other way to let accuracy impact damage, e.g. with hit locations. Or where this would just require too much investment for something that seems common enough...

Now, let's not get started about dealing damage/hitting better with charisma, because you're so flamboyantly flashy.

 

Looking at our GURPSian neighbors, you'll find that they've got problems with strength, too. With a more physical model, you'll get in lots of trouble if you try to assign strength values that integrate things like dead lift ability, pulling back bow strings or joules of impact from a punch.

Bruce Lee, Arnold and English yeomen don't really seem to be the same body type.

Realistically, "strength" is a very aspected thing. Ask any rock climber.

 

For superheroic games you'll get other problems, like being able to move planets vs. not punching anything to pulp, but in that attribute range, we clearly left earthly physics anyway.

 

Yet if we eliminate too many derived values from the core attributes, why do we actually have them at all? Mere tradition?

[Christopher R Taylor]

That's why I don't think you should completely divorce strength from damage.  You just don't get free punch damage from it.

 

It still should be useful for exertion to increase damage; strength should add to how much you do with a baseball bat or axe, it should be a limiter on bow draw, and so on.  That would still keep it useful and connected to damage.

 

However, Grailknight is right; the smart business thing to do is focus on Champions and make the game Champions-friendly first and foremost.  And many of the uses of strength in Hero aren't there for champions (no strength minimum on weapons, for example).

 

I am perfectly fine with simply saying "you can't buy strength only for damage" as a rule and eliminating the silly legacy limitation on HTA.  It might make a few players scratch their heads, especially the more number crunching munchkiny ones, but it would work fine.

[Lucius]

 

we should unify design for the main market of the game which I feel is Champions.

Some of us feel otherwise.

 

Some of us feel VERY STRONGLY otherwise.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is in one mind about this.

[Chris Goodwin]

"You're telling me I can lift a hundred tons but my punch only does 2d6? Tell me again why I should play 7th edition?"

 

PS - I was against removing the combat values from the stats.

 

PPS - It's actually kind of growing on me now that I've spent more time thinking on it.

[Grailknight]

 

 

Some of us feel otherwise.

 

Some of us feel VERY STRONGLY otherwise.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is in one mind about this.

 

Can I ask why? 

 

Superheroes are more mainstream now than they've ever been before. 

 

Even in the current RPG market, the Hero System has more market recognition around Champions than its other products.This is in spite of 5th and 6th editions skewing towards heroic level in design and publishing the main rule books without a genre attached(a mistake IMO)  Just look here at the boards. Champions has more topics than all the other genres and General Roleplaying combined. 

 

Hero should strengthen its foundation(Champions) and expand around it. It certainly isn't going to revive by taking market from Paizo or Wizards in the fantasy genre.