6th Edition Rules for previous editions

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah, the +20 point thing I'm not real fond of, I do prefer (and use) the concept of invisible effects to make a mental power perceivable rather than a higher roll.

[PhilFleischmann]

One more thing about the "breaking down into smaller pieces" thing:  Pretty much everything in HERO has this property, and that doesn't mean the costs are wrong.

 

A skill level with a single skill is 2 points.

A skill level with all Agility Skills is 6 points.

If I have more than three Agility Skills, I'm "getting more than what I paid for".

Does this mean that these levels are not priced correctly?

 

If I have a 60-active point power that doesn't work against the color Yellow (-1/4), that's 48 points.

If I have a 60-active point power that only works against the color Yellow (-2), that's 20 points.

Does this mean that a 60-active point power that works against Yellow and Non-Yellow is really worth 68 points, even though it costs only 60?

 

I don't think any system can protect you from building an inefficient character - nor should it.  You can always find a more expensive way to build something.  That doesn't mean the components you used for the more expensive build should be cheaper.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hugh intellect may have more skills listed but lets be real here. If you compare characters you will see more Dex skills used per character than intellect. Yeah you have your doctor destroyers that probably have more intellect than dex based skills but over all? No

Again, depends on the game, the camnpaign, etc. DEX is rarely the stat for a Power Skill used to control a VPP, nor is it often used for background skills. INT shows up for those all the time.

 

If your character has no abilities that use a specific stat, it's not worth as much to that specific character. That does not mean it is not valuable, only that it is not valuable to this character. How useful is a 30d6 Blast if you have a 1 SPD and 1 OCV?

 

 

One more thing about the "breaking down into smaller pieces" thing:  Pretty much everything in HERO has this property, and that doesn't mean the costs are wrong.

 

A skill level with a single skill is 2 points.

A skill level with all Agility Skills is 6 points.

If I have more than three Agility Skills, I'm "getting more than what I paid for".

Does this mean that these levels are not priced correctly?

If you have bought up 3 skills with +1 each, and can use two as complementary to the third, that seems like an advantage to me. The possibility you bought +1 to Climb and +1 to Stealth has already been raised above. I'm not sold that skill levels are priced appropriately to begin with. In particular, paying 4 points to get +1 with 1 INT or PRE skill at a time seems a pretty low discount when I can spend 5 points to get +1 with all of them at once, and all the other benefits of the stat.

 

My model would start with the premise that INT, PRE and DEX each cost 2 points. Half of that is for rolls based on that stat, so for 5 points, you get +1 to all DEX based rolls (for example). Restrict it more and the price should drop - maybe 3 for "any roll, one at a time", 2 for "any one of a tight group of up to 3 rolls" and 1 (rather than the current 2) for +1 for only one specific roll. Now I need to figure out what you get for 4 points

 

The more differences between the abilities, the tougher it becomes to compare prices, and we will certainly end up with some that do not align perfectly. It doesn't mean (at least to me) that we should throw our hands in the air and just price things randomly. Over the years, the pricing has become more consistent. Look at 1e Armor, Damage Resistance and Force Field. By 4e, we had much more consistent costing for these similar mechanics. At 6e, we figured out they did not need to be separate powers.

 

If I have a 60-active point power that doesn't work against the color Yellow (-1/4), that's 48 points.

If I have a 60-active point power that only works against the color Yellow (-2), that's 20 points.

Does this mean that a 60-active point power that works against Yellow and Non-Yellow is really worth 68 points, even though it costs only 60?

To nip this in the bud, any example can be cited as being poor costing, rather than proof costs should not balance. Is "not vs yellow" worth -1/4? It's funny how very little yellow shows up in Green Lantern since that weakness was downplayed into non-existence. If you claim "not vs yellow" at a -1/4 level, then it's the GMs job to make it show up now and then. Claim it at -1, and it's the GMs job to make it a lot more frequent, or require the limitation be reduced. How many times has that munchkin playing the Alien changed how common chunks of his planet of origin are?

 

To the specific example, the problem is that we hang our hats on "no limitation can be more than -2". Bull. The RAW tells me 10x END is -4, so it's not even internally consistent. If I let you pay 20 points for "only vs yellow", it's my job to make sure you get 20 points of value out of it. That means it should work about 1/3 as often as the base power would have.

 

The problem is that we assume -1/4 and -2 are the reciprocals. -1/2 and -2 are reciprocals. -1/4 is "very occasionally limiting". -2 is still reasonably useful. 8- activation isn't great, but it works 3/8 of the time - a bit more than 1/3, which is fine since the unpredictability is also limiting - I know not to waste my phase if the target is the wrong color. A 14- activation (-1/4) works over 90% of the time, but costs 80% of the points. In my view, if a power works a third of the time, predictably, that is -2, and if it fails 20% of the time, predictably, that is -1/4.

 

I don't think any system can protect you from building an inefficient character - nor should it.  You can always find a more expensive way to build something.  That doesn't mean the components you used for the more expensive build should be cheaper.

To me, the promise you "can build any character you can imagine" carries an implicit promise that concepts with more or less equivalent mechanical utility will carry a more or less equivalent cost. Pre-6e, you could not build an efficient "highly trained normal" without compromising that highly trained normals go way past 20 DEX and 4 SPD, because there was no way to get a decent CV. In fact, highly trained normals have a long tradition of better DEX and SPD that most superhumans.

 

Will the components always add perfectly? No, they won't. Doesn't mean we should not try to get them closer, and doesn't mean they guy who only wants half of what INT provides should pay 80% of the cost of INT, nor should he pay 20%.

[Ninja-Bear]

Now Hugh I get your point. But again 30D6 & 1 OCV 1 SPD? There's hypebole and thenb there's hyperbole. I will state in the games I play and run Dex is the more used than Int.

[PhilFleischmann]

To me, the promise you "can build any character you can imagine" carries an implicit promise that concepts with more or less equivalent mechanical utility will carry a more or less equivalent cost.

Yes, but that promise only applies if you build the character correctly (efficiently).  There is some responsibility on the part of the player.  A doctor can promise to cure your disease, but that promise is based on the premise that you actually take the medicine he prescribes.

 

To use your own example, do you think that a 30d6 Blast and 1 SPD and 1 OCV has "more or less equivalent mechanical utility" as anything else you could build with those 150 - 10 - 3 = 137 points?

 

Likewise, you could always build a high-DEX brick, spending 20-40 points on DEX, but not buying any Agility Skills, and having high enough defenses, that you're probably not going to be doing much Diving for Cover.  Such a character probably would be better off (have better overall mechanical utility) buying Lightning Reflexes, or something completely unrelated to DEX.  And you probably wouldn't spend a lot of points on INT and not have any Intellect Skills.

[Hugh Neilson]

Now Hugh I get your point. But again 30D6 & 1 OCV 1 SPD? There's hypebole and thenb there's hyperbole. I will state in the games I play and run Dex is the more used than Int.

In many games, PD is used more often than ED. Does that mean PD should cost more than ED?

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, but that promise only applies if you build the character correctly (efficiently).  There is some responsibility on the part of the player.  A doctor can promise to cure your disease, but that promise is based on the premise that you actually take the medicine he prescribes.

 

To use your own example, do you think that a 30d6 Blast and 1 SPD and 1 OCV has "more or less equivalent mechanical utility" as anything else you could build with those 150 - 10 - 3 = 137 points?

 

Likewise, you could always build a high-DEX brick, spending 20-40 points on DEX, but not buying any Agility Skills, and having high enough defenses, that you're probably not going to be doing much Diving for Cover.  Such a character probably would be better off (have better overall mechanical utility) buying Lightning Reflexes, or something completely unrelated to DEX.  And you probably wouldn't spend a lot of points on INT and not have any Intellect Skills.

We're now getting into synergies, rather than costing of the stat.

 

Why should my "absent-minded professor" have to pay 4 points per skill level to add +1 to one INT based skill at a time, because he does not, by concept, merit an enhancement to his PER rolls? +1 to all PER rolls costs 3 points. Why does -1 to all PER rolls + no complementary rolls for INT based skills only save 1 point? Why does a perceptive genius get a huge cost break?

 

This is not a case of "building an inefficient character", but of the point costing making the non-perceptive genius an inefficient concept.

[PhilFleischmann]

We're now getting into synergies, rather than costing of the stat.

 

Why should my "absent-minded professor" have to pay 4 points per skill level to add +1 to one INT based skill at a time, because he does not, by concept, merit an enhancement to his PER rolls? +1 to all PER rolls costs 3 points. Why does -1 to all PER rolls + no complementary rolls for INT based skills only save 1 point? Why does a perceptive genius get a huge cost break?

 

This is not a case of "building an inefficient character", but of the point costing making the non-perceptive genius an inefficient concept.

You buy the INT normally, up to whatever level it should be, and then you give him the Psychological Complication: Absent-Minded Professor.  (This usually has nothing to do with a reduced ability to perceive things, only a reduced attention span.  If he's in his lab looking at something through his microscope, concentrating on that, he shouldn't have any penalty to see what he needs to see there.  But he may fail to notice that someone just walked in and wants to talk to him or something.)

[Hugh Neilson]

I want a reduced PER - he's constantly distracted, and does not get the benefit of his high INT on perception checks. He has a 43 INT, but not an 18- PER roll.

 

He only has an 11- PER roll. He does not notice the faint aura of the Femme Fatale's perfume wafting across the room, even if he is not distracted.

 

He does not hear the tumblers in the safe click into place, even if he is focusing on doing so.

 

He cannot see objects at a great distance any more effectively than his teammates, and the Hunter with a 13- INT and +2 Enhanced PER is far more likely to awaken as the stealthy intruder enters the camp.

 

He cannot pick out a fly on a pig's back at 70 paces.

 

He cannot make an EGO roll (and he is very strong-willed as well, so ego rolls come easily) to gain such perception. He does not have that level of perceptiveness to begin with.

 

If he were blind, he could sell back his sight, but you want him to sell back an ability that his Hunter teammate would pay 18 points for (+6 PER between 13 and 43 INT) for a complication? How is that fair? You are making this character concept, and others, an inefficient choice by providing a cost break to anyone who wants to be both perceptive and good with intellect skills. The Mighty Hunter is paying 60% of the cost of INT to get benefits on only a small subset of rolls. For +2 points he could also have a bonus on his Concelament, Lipreading, Mimicry, Navigation, Shadowing, Survival and Tracking skills (without dipping into background skills at all). Why does he have to be as smart as the Mad Genius in order to boost these skills (all of them at once - he wants to Track, Shadow, Lip Read, Navigate and Mimic at the same time) in a cost-efficient manner?

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess it must be the player's fault for deciding not to play a Mad Scientist Mighty Hunter...

[Ninja-Bear]

In many games, PD is used more often than ED. Does that mean PD should cost more than ED?

Maybe it should. Has Body been bought more since its cheaper?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Again, its not "used more" but rather "used in combat vs non combat" that causes DEX to cost more than INT.  Plus, DEX has more uses overall.  Its sort of obvious why DEX costs more in play, only specialist characters buy more INT than DEX, even from players who started with 6th edition.  Its intuitive that the stat is more valuable.

[bigdamnhero]

only specialist characters buy more INT than DEX, even from players who started with 6th edition.

I just looked, and 3 out of 5 PCs in my current game have higher INT than DEX.

In my last campaign, 2 out of 3 had higher INT than DEX.

In the campaign before that, 2 had higher DEX, 1 had higher INT, and 2 had DEX & INT tied.

 

My sample may not be representative, obviously; my point is just that your sample may not be representative either.

 

I do agree about the combat-vs-noncombat costs. Agree or disagree with the principle, but it's baked into Hero at a pretty fundamental level.

 

It may make a difference how much you play supers vs. heroic? DEX inflation tends to be much higher in supers games IMX.

[PhilFleischmann]

I want a reduced PER - he's constantly distracted, and does not get the benefit of his high INT on perception checks. He has a 43 INT, but not an 18- PER roll.

OK, then buy the INT with a Limitation: Does Not Apply to PER Rolls.

 

The Mighty Hunter is paying 60% of the cost of INT to get benefits on only a small subset of rolls. For +2 points he could also have a bonus on his Concelament, Lipreading, Mimicry, Navigation, Shadowing, Survival and Tracking skills (without dipping into background skills at all). Why does he have to be as smart as the Mad Genius in order to boost these skills (all of them at once - he wants to Track, Shadow, Lip Read, Navigate and Mimic at the same time) in a cost-efficient manner?

Buy him the INT with a Limitation: Only Applies to PER and his "Mighty Hunter" Skills.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, then buy the INT with a Limitation: Does Not Apply to PER Rolls.

Applying that limitation at -1/4:

 

- saves 1/3 of the points it would cost to buy up the PER rolls lost;

- reduces the cost for all non-PER INT rolls being enhanced to the same cost of enhancing any one of a subset of such rolls.

 

Increase the limitation, and enhanced PER becomes a more reasonable buy at the cost of making skill levels suck even more in comparison.

 

Meanwhile, Mighty Hunter also gets a better deal on his INT (even at -1/4) than buying skill levels.

 

This is what leads me to the conclusion the pricing is out of whack. Reducing the cost of skill levels and enhanced PER to compensate will make them very low cost. Raising the cost of INT to 2 points seems like the best way to put some whack back in that pricing.

 

By the way, it was working through similar math - with the view that a skill level is nothing more than a limited stat - that lead me to conclude the issue is not that DEX is overpriced at 2 points, but that INT and PRE are underpriced at 1 point.

[Ninja-Bear]

I just looked, and 3 out of 5 PCs in my current game have higher INT than DEX.

In my last campaign, 2 out of 3 had higher INT than DEX.

In the campaign before that, 2 had higher DEX, 1 had higher INT, and 2 had DEX & INT tied.

 

My sample may not be representative, obviously; my point is just that your sample may not be representative either.

 

I do agree about the combat-vs-noncombat costs. Agree or disagree with the principle, but it's baked into Hero at a pretty fundamental level.

 

It may make a difference how much you play supers vs. heroic? DEX inflation tends to be much higher in supers games IMX.

I'm willing to bet a beer (wish I could give you one) that if used published chaeacters as a meteic, Dex would overwhelming be the higher stat.

[Netzilla]

Ideally, you'd want to compare characters created by different authors. As many (most?) of the current CU characters were designed by Steve Long, and we already know he highly values going first, it wouldn't be surprising to find that SL-designed characters tend toward higher DEX scores even at a 2-point cost.  I'm less aware of the character-building biases of other Hero authors.

 

A better question might be, would costing INT and PRE at 2 points each cause players to buy less of those stats?  Unfortunately, that's harder to answer as it's purely hypothetical at this point.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ideally, you'd want to compare characters created by different authors. As many (most?) of the current CU characters were designed by Steve Long, and we already know he highly values going first, it wouldn't be surprising to find that SL-designed characters tend toward higher DEX scores even at a 2-point cost. I'm less aware of the character-building biases of other Hero authors.

 

A better question might be, would costing INT and PRE at 2 points each cause players to buy less of those stats? Unfortunately, that's harder to answer as it's purely hypothetical at this point.

I could limit this to the Original Enemies 1-3 and still prove my point. (And still give you a beer if I lost.)

[Netzilla]

But the original Enemies books were written when DEX still granted SPD, OCV and DCV in addition to what it currently gives.  One of the key arguments has been that DEX was necessary to be effective in combat under the old rules and currently it's not.  Using the old write-ups doesn't say anything about the current state of the rules.

[bigdamnhero]

Similarly 90%+ of published 6ed Champions characters were created under earlier editions and updated to 6ed with minimal tweaking. So all that proves is that "DEX Was God" under previous editions, which is something we already know.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yup. And even the few created for 6e followed the general averages of the characters rolled forward from 5e and prior editions. Reverse compatability and all that!

 

How many 6e characters do not have equal OCV and DCV?

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I built my Bestiary, I gave creatures stats based on what I wanted them to be like, not what they would be in previous editions.  In fact, I always did that.  This is a fox, its agile and quick, its faster than he hedgehog.  A dragon doesn't have enormous DEX, because its more a force of nature than a precision instrument.  But Hellcats are fast as lightning and have huge DEX. For me, its always been about how quickly I imagine (or have seen) them react and act in a fight or to surprise when I build DEX.  I built a combat guy who is faster than most of his foes, with great reaction time, then he's got a high DEX.  This guy is slower but smarter, lower DEX, higher INT.

 

And still, DEX ends up being higher than INT, because unless a character is specifically built to be smart, perceptive, and analytical, they don't have a lot of INT on the table.  But they're all ready for a fight.

[Joe Walsh]

Out of curiosity, what was your baseline DEX score when trying to figure those stats out? A normal human with DEX 10, or something else?

[Ninja-Bear]

Similarly 90%+ of published 6ed Champions characters were created under earlier editions and updated to 6ed with minimal tweaking. So all that proves is that "DEX Was God" under previous editions, which is something we already know.

 

And if you went with their backgrounds do you really think you could justify a higher INT than DEX?

 

A lower Dex by far than original, I grant you. Still you really think you will see INT higher than say 15 or DEX lower than 15?

[Ninja-Bear]

And I bet (beer again) that if you did a survey, most people value Dex over Int unless concept says otherwise.