Switching from 4e to 6e

[GCMorris]

Luckily none of my players care much about point efficiency, they care more about character concept. Right now. But I'm sure that will change, they're new. I'm basically new...

[assault]

6e also has those interesting characteristic benchmark tables. By themselves they tend to point back towards the traditional characteristic levels.

[assault]

The sample characters have a lot more impact than I think we give them credit. Think back – way back – to 1e Hero. If those few example characters had been constructed with, say, DEXs reduced by 12 and SPDs reduced by 2, we would have had:

 

- Slow Supers with a DEX of 8 or so (20 – 12), and 3 CV, and SPD 2 (4-2)

- Average Supers with DEX 11 – 14 (4 – 5 CV) and SPD 3

- Fast Supers with DEX 18 or so (CV 6) and SPD 4.

- REALLY fast characters might push DEX up to 21 or 23 (CV 7-8) (instead of 33 – 35/11-12 where we got to pretty quick in Enemies books), and 7-8 SOD would have been 5-6

 

The obvious question here is: why were the example characters built in the particular range they were?

 

Was it arbitrary, or did it evolve through play testing and experimentation with the rules?

[Hugh Neilson]

I never had that problem really, but I can see how people really trying to crunch numbers would.  If my character concept was someone less agile, then they were less agile.  If they were accurate, I bought levels.  If they were quick, I bought speed, if they were slow, I didn't.  But that probably wasn't the norm.

 

What if they were very agile, but not very accurate? You could not have a high DEX, low CV character before 6e.

 

quote name="assault" post="2516108" timestamp="1466803732"]The obvious question here is: why were the example characters built in the particular range they were?

 

Was it arbitrary, or did it evolve through play testing and experimentation with the rules?

 

With the authors no longer active in Hero, and no discussion in the published rules, we'll likely never know. However, as I recall, 1e had no real discussion of any range for normal humans, only the "base 10 with no points spent" starting point for a PC, and the points available to DNPC's. Only with the early non-Supers games did we see any suggestion of the range for non-Supers, and those were written to be different games with the same engine. I recall an old Adventurers' Club article which had surveyed campaign norms, and found a huge range of defenses and damage classes, as there were no suggested standards prior to 4e.

[zslane]

The problem was not the existence of figured characteristics, but the point balance. 

 

One should take care not to fall prey to the myth of "point balance" in any system, not even one as good as the Hero System. Point balance in Hero is only very approximate, very contextual, and very subjective. I mean, how does one decide which of two character built with the same points is "more powerful", especially if the character concepts are very different?

 

Nevertheless, for players who feel their character concept can't be built properly with the points allotted, I have a Disadvantage they can take:

 

Hard Luck Case - 25 points

This character has the misfortune of being point inefficient. Therefore the campaign owes him or her 25 points, just to balance the cosmic scales of this systemic injustice.

 

There, problem solved. No reasonable player would deny this Disadvantage to those characters whose only fault is being based on a concept that is inherently point inefficient. It's not like Hard Luck Cases are going to be 25 points "more powerful" than everyone else, right? It will merely bring them up to snuff with everyone else who is more point efficient.

 

There is also a complementary Talent that highly point-efficient characters can be forced to buy:

 

Too Good to Be True - 25 points

This character is just too good to be true. They are only built on 250 points and yet they function as if built on 275 due to point efficiency. Therefore they owe 25 points to the fairness bank, just to balance the scales of this systemic injustice.

 

Since everyone agrees that some character concepts are simply too good (for their point cost), they shouldn't be allowed to ruin campaigns when a simple tax of 25 points can fix everything.

 

See, a clever GM can solve this situation without changing editions (or how build costs are computed). And they can adjust the point values as needed, depending on just how imbalanced they believe a particular character concept to be. That's a degree of situational flexibility even decoupled characteristics can't provide.

[Hyper-Man]

Is it a character concept issue or system mastery issue? 

 

 

HM

[Hugh Neilson]

One should take care not to fall prey to the myth of "point balance" in any system, not even one as good as the Hero System. Point balance in Hero is only very approximate, very contextual, and very subjective. I mean, how does one decide which of two character built with the same points is "more powerful", especially if the character concepts are very different?

As indicated above, assessing whether +2d6 Blast, +1 SPD and +1 OCV/+1DCV are of equal, or even approximately equal, value is challenging and uncertain at best.

 

Determining whether having + 9 OCV and +9 DCV, +5 to all DEX skills, +25 Lightning Reflexes and a 6 Speed through having a 35 DEX (5e) on which you spent 80 points (+25 DEX +5 for SPD) is better or worse than having +9 levels with DCV so you can have the same DCV if you have time to allocate your skill levels (45 points), +5 skill levels so you can add 5 to one DEX skill at a time, instead of all DEX rolls (25 points) and 6 SPD (40 points) is objectively unbalanced in that 110 points are spent (30 more) to gain less benefit in identical areas across the board.

 

The only "system mastery" involved is selecting a character concept that justifies buying a 35 DEX.

[Christopher R Taylor]

What if they were very agile, but not very accurate? You could not have a high DEX, low CV character before 6e.

 

 

You bought lots of DEX, only for non-CV applications (-1/2 limitation).  There's nothing in the stats that couldn't be done in 5th edition that can in 6th, it just took a little effort.  Emphasis on little.

[Hugh Neilson]

You bought lots of DEX, only for non-CV applications (-1/2 limitation).  There's nothing in the stats that couldn't be done in 5th edition that can in 6th, it just took a little effort.  Emphasis on little.

When I can buy DEX with no SPD rebate for the same -1/2, and get all the combat and noncombat applications of DEX, your pricing seems very off. How much if I only want the CV bonuses, no non-combat applications or SPD rebate? Part of the problem was the bundling, but the reality was that DEX was the real bargain purchase prior to 6e.

[zslane]

Determining whether having + 9 OCV and +9 DCV, +5 to all DEX skills, +25 Lightning Reflexes and a 6 Speed through having a 35 DEX (5e) on which you spent 80 points (+25 DEX +5 for SPD) is better or worse than having +9 levels with DCV so you can have the same DCV if you have time to allocate your skill levels (45 points), +5 skill levels so you can add 5 to one DEX skill at a time, instead of all DEX rolls (25 points) and 6 SPD (40 points) is objectively unbalanced in that 110 points are spent (30 more) to gain less benefit in identical areas across the board.The only "system mastery" involved is selecting a character concept that justifies buying a 35 DEX.

Just out of curiosity, how much would the 35 DEX version cost if SPD (and only SPD) were de-coupled from DEX?

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I can buy DEX with no SPD rebate for the same -1/2, and get all the combat and noncombat applications of DEX, your pricing seems very off.

 

 

​Probably, but you could do it.  And that's the point, right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Determining whether having + 9 OCV and +9 DCV, +5 to all DEX skills, +25 Lightning Reflexes and a 6 Speed through having a 35 DEX (5e) on which you spent 80 points (+25 DEX +5 for SPD) is better or worse than having +9 levels with DCV so you can have the same DCV if you have time to allocate your skill levels (45 points), +5 skill levels so you can add 5 to one DEX skill at a time, instead of all DEX rolls (25 points) and 6 SPD (40 points) is objectively unbalanced in that 110 points are spent (30 more) to gain less benefit in identical areas across the board.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, how much would the 35 DEX version cost if SPD (and only SPD) were de-coupled from DEX?

If we assume DEX stays priced at 3 points, 80 + 25 = 105 (still spending slightly more to get much less in the second example). If we drop the cost of DEX to 2, as 6e did, the cost does not change, but I suspect you were envisioning the cost staying at 3.

[Hugh Neilson]

​Probably, but you could do it.  And that's the point, right?

No, the point was that concepts should not be penalized by excessive point costs, nor rewarded with enhanced point efficiency.

 

There is also the fact that the proposed limited DEX is not an official construct, which logically leads to the question of the appropriate limitation.  -1/2 does not reflect the loss of Figured, OCV and DCV - I suggest these make up more than half the value of DEX, leading to a limitation of at least -1 1/2 (-1/2 for No Figured + -1 for loss of OCV and DCV, and that is conservative, in my view).

[zslane]

If we assume DEX stays priced at 3 points, 80 + 25 = 105 (still spending slightly more to get much less in the second example). If we drop the cost of DEX to 2, as 6e did, the cost does not change, but I suspect you were envisioning the cost staying at 3.

Right. I guess my thought is that your example was engineered rather specifically to use the DEX/SPD relationship because it yields the most shocking cost differential. DEX/SPD has probably been used more than any other figured characteristic link to demonize the whole notion of figured characteristics, when I sort of feel it only really makes a case for decoupling DEX and SPD. And even then, any 4e campaign can "house rule" a decoupled DEX/SPD if it is being abused (or making players with less point-efficient builds feel inadequate to the point of wanting to leave the game). A wholesale jump to 6e still doesn't feel worth it to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't find DEX mispriced pre-6e due to its link to SPD, but due to all of its other benefits.  Even at 3 points, 45 points for +5 OCV, +5 DCV, +15 Combat Reflexes and +3 to all DEX rolls is bargain- priced.

 

I think 6e could have reasonably gone one of two ways - modify costs so you get what you pay for (likely means increasing the price of DEX a lot, STR not insignificantly and CON a bit, as well as reducing the cost of REC, STUN and END), or the approach taken, having priced everything out, make "no figured" the rule rather than a limitation. 

 

+30 CON gets me +15 STUN (7.5 points), +6 ED (6 points), +60 END (12 points) and +6 REC (6 points) for a total of 31.5, plus CON rolls and resistance to being Stunned.  That would have worked at 2 points per CON, and -1 for No Figured.

 

+30 STR gets me +15 STUN (7.5 points), +6 PD (6 points) and +6 REC (6 points), and +12 meters leaping = 25.5 points.  So do we put -2 on No Figured, and you can have all the other benefits of +30 STR for 10 points?  More reasonably, we make No Figured -3/4 and reprice STR at 2 points, so +30, no figured, costs me 34.29.  Now we have to figure out how that ripples out to DC's, END costs, etc. But it's do-able.

 

+30 BOD nets +30 STUN (15 points) and +30 "harder to kill" It can be 1 points per and -1 for No Figured - extra BOD means characters live longer - that's fine.  If we keep it at 2 points, No Figured is -1/4, and being harder to kill is expensive.

 

+30 DEX nets me +3 SPD (10 points), +6 DCV (30) , +6 OCV (30) and benefits similar to PRE and INT (rolls for a lot of skills and a secondary effect, initiative).  So that should cost about 100 points, or 130 if we figure DEX is really twice as valuable as INT or PRE.  Maybe we make it 4 points per and No Figured is -1 1/4. +30 DEX costs 120, or 53 without the 70 points worth of Figured.  Or we price OCV, DCV and/or the other components of DEX lower and try again.  OOPS - MAJOR ERROR ON CVs - SEE BELOW

 

Or we decide that Figured are inconsistent with the "you get the abilities you pay for": Hero philosophy, and violating that with Figured is way more trouble than it;s worth to keep an old tradition, and take the 6e approach.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, and DEX was the bargain - STR and CON were a little less than free after you factored in the Figured's, but STUN, END and REC were overpriced.  DEX should have cost 5 points per (+3 SPD is 30, +10 OCV and DCV are 50 each, so that's 130 right there - my math above is out).

 

At 5 points, +30 DEX costs 150. and No Figured needs to be -3 or more.  At 6 points, +30 DEX for rolls and initiative costs 50 points, and we can scrape by with a -2.5 No Figured limitation.

 

6e made the right call on Figured, IMNSHO.  My initial gut check was that I did not want to lose them, but Steve made the right call.

[Christopher R Taylor]

No, the point was that concepts should not be penalized by excessive point costs, nor rewarded with enhanced point efficiency.

 

 

Oh I'm sorry I thought you just wrote to me...

 

You could not have a high DEX, low CV character before 6e.

 

 

You could.  It just wasn't as straight forward as it is now.  Figured didn't make any build possible that was impossible before.  It just streamlined some.

[Tasha]

oops 

 

[bigbywolfe]

Deleted

[Vanguard]

Who was it that said fairness as a concept is vastly overrated and hugely misunderstood? There's little point in changing the rules if you don't actually apply the changes. I don't find many other games since 3e D&D which look for reverse compatibility between editions. Prior to 3e, a new edition of a game was typically a tweak to some rules, not essentially a brand-new game, but 3e changed that model.

 

Decoupling was substantially expanded in 6e, but just printing the same characters we had from 5e suggests there was no real point in doing so. I think that was ultimately a failing in the presentation of 6e.

 

I have no clue. But I do know that no one I've every played with would be happy playing a 100 point character while everyone else was playing a 300 point one.  I don't know if that was the point you were trying to make or if it sailed over my head (sometimes that happens:) )

 

You are correct though. If you're going to change the rules then you should take the time and effort to apply those changes.  Thing is, as far as I know, every book (with characters) that has been published for 6th Ed has had the characters just copied and pasted. All of them.

 

Oops, sorry. I see that were in agreement on this . . . 

 

At least I think we are . . . 

 

I never had that problem really, but I can see how people really trying to crunch numbers would.  If my character concept was someone less agile, then they were less agile.  If they were accurate, I bought levels.  If they were quick, I bought speed, if they were slow, I didn't.  But that probably wasn't the norm.

 

We've had that problem constantly.  No one wanted to buy levels because it wasn't an efficient use of points.  For maybe a little more expenditure, you could put the points you were placing in skill levels into Dex and now your CVs have gone up, your speed might have gone up AND all your Dex based skills have gone up.

 

I kind of wish all the players I encountered were like you. I think I would have had a much more entertaining time using the Hero system.  (Not saying it wasn't fun but it was a bit exhausting dealing with things like the above).

 

 

You bought lots of DEX, only for non-CV applications (-1/2 limitation).  There's nothing in the stats that couldn't be done in 5th edition that can in 6th, it just took a little effort.  Emphasis on little.

 

Except no one, at least no one I played with, was willing to make that effort. It was easier to just purchase skad loads of the stats what would give  you the most bang for your buck and trying to wiggle the character concept into that.

[Ninja-Bear]

Vanguard fwiw, the characters may have cut and pasted from 5e to 6e but from what I saw, the characters from 5e built from previous editions were not the same build!

[Hugh Neilson]

I have no clue. But I do know that no one I've every played with would be happy playing a 100 point character while everyone else was playing a 300 point one.  I don't know if that was the point you were trying to make or if it sailed over my head (sometimes that happens:) )

I think we come with a similar perspective.

 

We've had that problem constantly.  No one wanted to buy levels because it wasn't an efficient use of points.  For maybe a little more expenditure, you could put the points you were placing in skill levels into Dex and now your CVs have gone up, your speed might have gone up AND all your Dex based skills have gone up.

 

I kind of wish all the players I encountered were like you. I think I would have had a much more entertaining time using the Hero system.  (Not saying it wasn't fun but it was a bit exhausting dealing with things like the above).

To me, it is a system fault if getting the same abilities two different ways carries significantly different costs (or, viewed another way, I can spend the same number of points and get a far greater benefit). It's not a player fault for wanting his 300 point character to be roughly as effective and useful as the other 300 point characters, rather than struggling to keep up with 100 point characters.

 

If a character whose concept suggested normal human stats and a lot of skill levels could be built on the same point budget as a character with a huge DEX, then there would not be an incentive to twist the concept into supporting a huge DEX. Spending 30 points (15 x 3 for +15 DEX, less 15 points saved on your SPD) moving DEX from 20 to 35 bumps OCV and DCV by 5 points, improves DEX skills by +3 and improves initiative by +15. Spend 32 points on 4 overall combat levels, and you should feel ripped off. Why? Because you WERE ripped off. The other guy gets a better OCV and DCV at all times, and gets a bunch of other benefits. You get to add a couple of DCs, if you can hit with a 5 OCV deficit before getting KOd due to your 5 point DCV deficit.

 

Spending the 25 (+5 OCV) +25 (+5 DCV) = 50 points on combat skill levels feels at least a bit more balanced.

[dgulledge]

Its not very challenging, and I speak from experience converting hundreds of characters over.  The main changes are that there is no find weakness or missile deflection any longer (so you have to find other ways to simulate them or drop the powers) and the stat change.  But making a direct, straight over conversion is easy.

 

Even Find Weakness and Missile Deflection aren't much of a problem.  The 6e Advanced Player's Guide offers a new power called Piercing.  Instead of reducing a defense by 50%, it reduces the defense by a fixed amount.  Put a Requires A Roll limitation on it and it is a lot like Find Weakness.  The 6e Deflection power isn't all that different from Missile Deflection.

[dgulledge]

I wonder if you couldn't just plug the 4e or 5e version of Find Weakness into 6e? I doubt it would be that unbalancing, and it would be much simpler than fudging an equivalent build from Armor Piercing.

 

If it's a big deal, limit it to halving defenses at most.

 

The simplest solutions are usually the best.

 

I agree about simple solutions.  I also prefer where possible to stick to the rules of the game and specifically the edition I'm using if possible.  In the case of Find Weakness, there's a power in the Advanced Players Guide called Piercing that you can probably adapt with a couple of limitations, particularly Requires a Roll.

[eepjr24]

Even Find Weakness and Missile Deflection aren't much of a problem.  The 6e Advanced Player's Guide offers a new power called Piercing.  Instead of reducing a defense by 50%, it reduces the defense by a fixed amount.  Put a Requires A Roll limitation on it and it is a lot like Find Weakness.  The 6e Deflection power isn't all that different from Missile Deflection.

No, not even close. You would have to have as much "piercing" as they did armor and come up with some sort of RSR on bits of it so that multiple checks would reduce it to 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, etc. 

 

That said, I think it is good that Find Weakness is gone. Good riddance.

 

- E