Jump to content

Decoupled Characteristics' Effect on Character Builds in 6th Edition


Recommended Posts

So, I was just trying to wrap my head around character building in 6th Edition vs. 5th Edition, and doing some bad math in the process.

 

When 5th Edition came out, there were only minor changes to costs, mainly on the Powers/Skills/Talents side of the character sheet. The suggested starting Champions character went from 250 pts to 350 pts. The suggested power levels remained the same for characteristics, powers, CV, etc. So, if you built a character with similar stats to what you'd use in 4th, even if you boosted a few stats, you'd end up with a lot more points to spend on the other side of the sheet, enabling a more well-rounded character and letting you toss a few points to skills or powers that were more for defining your flavor, style or niche.

 

With 6th Edition, figured characteristics became just plain characteristics, same as the rest. This meant that all other things being equal, you end up paying a bit more for your characteristics block. The suggested build points for a standard super went up, but only by 50 this time, to 400. Now, it seems like you still have ample points to build a rounded character, a la 5th. But it seems that if you directly translate the stat block of a 5th character (or 4th) to 6th,  you're spending a greater percentage of your points on characteristics.

 

To test this, I pulled out the BBB, and directly translated the stats for Crusader (Martial Artist) and Ogre (stat heavy Brick). Barring any miscalculations, Crusader went from 152 pts to 219 pts in characteristics, and Ogre from 178 pts to 238 pts. Taken as a percentage of total points spent in characteristics, here's how it looks in 4th, 5th, and 6th:

 

Crusader:

4th: 60.8%

5th: 43.4%

6th: 54.75%

 

Ogre:

4th: 71.2%

5th: 50.8%

6th: 59.5%

 

So, it looks like there's a bit less room on the Powers/Skills/Talents side of the sheet under 6th. My stat sheets for a fast, Char-heavy Brick and a stats-light mostly normal Char range Archer are 54.8%/65%, and 32.8%/47.75% respectively, with the Archer who's intended to spend a lot more on the Skills/Gear side of the sheet taking the bigger hit over the stat heavy brick. (Though the brick would have to buy Striking Appearance instead COM, but figured that would offset.)

 

Now, you could save a few points by not directly translating stats. For example, I may buy up EGO for the EGO roll and a buffer against mental attacks, but don't really care that much about the MOCV or MDCV, so one or both of those could be left at base level. I tend to buy STR, CON, and BDY levels that add up to STUN totals ending in a 0 or 5, so that's another habit that could be broken in some cases. The same for the old habit of taking an 11 in EGO for the MCV boost. DEX becomes way less important for its figureds, so could be dropped to whatever level you like your DEX skills to be at (negligible for many concepts without many DEX skills) and initiative bought up through Lightning Reflexes at a lower cost. 

 

Those are just a few obvious observations I thought of. But it does seem like the decoupled figureds in 6th would cause an adjustment in character building approach. To those who have made the switch, my question is what impact, if any, the change has had in how you approach building characters under 6th vs 5th?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that mist of the BBB characters translated to about 300 pts give it take about 10 pts. Armadillo was super cheap at 225 ish and so was Blue Jay.  That’s from buying all characteristics through focus. Howler I think was 370ish but that was due mainly to her absorption power which I don’t understand well. (Note Im way from my notes).

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I’ve done is non mentalists I don’t buy any OMCV. I’ll buy up up DMCV, so if a character has 15 Ego non mentalist. He has OMCV 3 DMCV of 4.  I do think that heroes and villains should have a minimum of OCV & DCV. At least 6 possible 7 then (and I haven’t figured out yet a good rational) of having an offset of OCV/DCV. I’m working on making them all 300 CPs for myself, so there is one area I’ll cut for points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm less interested in converting characters between editions than how the decoupling of figured characteristics effects the build habits we've become accustomed to over the years.

 

Eliminating some breakpoints makes other breakpoints even more prominent. I don't automatically buy heroic characters DEX up to 14 to get the OCV and DCV. I now automatically buy DEX up to 13 to get the DEX and Skill rolls.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I need to go by the bank if I'm to buy anything and take some money from the ATM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason characters directly translated from earlier edition cost more is because you almost had to purchase certain stats higher than they really needed to be.  DEX and CON in particular where to cost effective to ignore.  The heavy fighters in a FH game usually ended up with the DEX of an Olympic gymnast.  Even if they did not start that way eventually everyone bought up their DEX.  The same thing was also true with CON and to a lesser extent STR. 

 

6th edition makes it easier to build characters the way they should.  You no longer have incentive to purchase certain stats simply to get others cheaper.  If I want a character with a high DCV I simply purchase DCV.  I don’t need to crank up the DEX to get that.  It will change the way things are built because almost since 1st edition there was a certain uniformity to most characters stats.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, looking at the new way of doing characteristics from the standpoint of what each one does for us, and only buying the ones we need:

 

Strength: Nothing really changes about how we approach Strength. If you want a Brick, you're buying it up. Otherwise, you might only buy a smaller amount for lifting capacity, a bit of base HTH damage for other archetypes, or just for concept.

 

Dexterity: You're targeting DEX skills, and to a lesser extent initiative. Lightning Reflexes seems to be a much better deal for the initiative component. So, we should expect to see lower DEX values, though going up to 23 might be seen for those with a lot of DEX skills who want them at 14- without messing with skill levels.

 

Constitution: Only good for resisting being stunned, and the very occasional CON roll. Should expect to see these value drop, too.

 

Intelligence: Nothing much changes here. Perception and Skill Rolls will still drive it.

 

Ego: That 11 breakpoint to get a 4 mental combat value goes away, so we should see a lot less characters with 11 Egos. However, the cost has dropped, so buying bigger chunks to resist mental powers might be more common. Characters who need to make Ego rolls to overcome Complications, or players who like to Push might buy it up.

 

Presence: Not much changes here.

 

So, not much changes in the characteristics formerly known as primary, other than  perhaps lower DEX and CON showing up.

 

OCV/DVC: First, I can see people buying uneven values, to represent more offensively or defensively oriented characters. Then again, it may be cheaper to use CSLs if those have been restructured in 6th. But they're both expensive. Sure, we can lower DEX inflation by decoupling, but does that save anything on the character sheet if campaigns are still defaulting to the old value ranges of 6 to 9 or so base CV?

 

SPD: Again, nothing changes unless the campaign default assumption shifts from the 4-6 baseline.

 

But what happens to the cost? Let's take a typical Brick, with an 18 DEX and 4 SPD. Under 5th Edition, that costs 36 pts. If a Brick still wants to have a 4 SPD and base 6 CVs  under 6th edition, but drops the DEX down to 10, the cost would be 50 pts. So, that same brick is paying 39% more for his SPD and CVs. Yet the increase in the base points is only 28.5%. So, even by ditching DEX completely (and he'll still want to spend some number of points on LR, which I assume has been recosted) there's a disparity.

 

Mental Combat Values: Basically driven by whether or not you're a mentalist. Not much change there.

 

BODY: I'll assume nothing much changes here, other than no need to buy it to values that round off your STUN total.

 

PD/ED/REC/END/STUN: If the basic guidelines for attack DCs and defense levels don't change, we could run into a similar problem of the increased costs not being met by the increase in character build points. This one's a bit more complicated, so I'll probably screw things up worse (please correct me if I do):

 

Let's say you want a 60 STR and 28 CON under the old system. That gets you an 18 REC, 56 END and 44 STUN (not counting Body) for free, and 12 PD/6 ED. Let's say you boost your PD to 30 and your ED to 20. That'll cost 50 (STR) + 36 (CON) + 18 (PD) + 14 (ED) = 118 character points.

 

Under the new system, we decide on 60 STR, because still a brick (+50 pts); set CON to what? 20? that's not superhuman and we're a Brick, so let's say we go up to 23 for the CON rolls and stun resistance (+13); assuming we still want defenses at the same levels, we're still going with 30 PD (+28) and 20 ED (+18); we still need enough END to fuel that STR, but maybe go with 50 as a nice, round number (+6); high stun seems a good idea, so let's set it to 50 (+15). That's a total of 130 character points. That's an increase of 10%. This works out a bit better than the DEX stuff. 

 

The total of both the DEX and the STR/CON stuff under 5th: 154 pts. Under 6th: 180. Net change of 17%. So, taken together, this offsets with the bump in build points to 400.

 

OK, not so bad for a basic Brick stat block. I don't want to go through it again with a normal STR character, but I suspect the non-bricks will still operate at a deficit.

 

So, what are the assumptions for Standard Supers in 6th? Did they lower any of the things based on the figured characteristics as baseline assumptions, or the level of damage and defense?

 

It looks like the only shift I can see in designing characters is putting a stop to DEX inflation and having a choice of allocating OCV/DCV (and their mental counterparts) unevenly.

 

The majority of Characteristics are still going to be driven by campaign guidelines for the most part, so unless those default assumptions changed, I don't see any other major impact from decoupling, other than a shift of some points on the sheet.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly I just stick the extra 50 points into OCV and DCV, and shave any other points I need elsewhere. In practice, that's "colour" skills. My scientist characters, for example, are scientists because I say they are, rather than because they buy big slabs of Science Skills. Even in an extreme case, a scientist is a scientist if he spends 3 points on (say) Physics, and not 28 points on a list of stuff that is usually irrelevant anyway.

 

At times I've increased Dex to 28 for the skill breakpoint.

 

So, basically, little change except for fewer skills.

 

And I've mainly gone back to 2nd/3rd edition, because the extra fiddly detail of 5th and 6th does nothing for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

OK, looking at the new way of doing characteristics from the standpoint of what each one does for us, and only buying the ones we need:

 

Strength: Nothing really changes about how we approach Strength. If you want a Brick, you're buying it up. Otherwise, you might only buy a smaller amount for lifting capacity, a bit of base HTH damage for other archetypes, or just for concept.

I'm going to chunk this thorough analysis up.  In 5e, I found STR of 13 or 18 pretty common, 13 especially for those "low STR" characters.  3 points for +1 PD, +1 REC and +2 STUN meant you were paying to have a 10 STR instead of a 13.  +10 STR gained +2 PD (1 point), +2 REC (4 points) and +5 STUN (5 points).  6e fixed this both by decoupling and by lowering the cost of REC and STUN, but if you would have bought 2 of the 3 up, you were better off buying STR and selling back the third Figured.  The pricing was out, and had been since 1e.  Oh, and you got Leaping.

 

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Constitution: Only good for resisting being stunned, and the very occasional CON roll. Should expect to see these value drop, too.

 

Again, Figured.  +10 CON meant +2 ED (2 points), +2 REC (4 points), +5 STUN (5 points) and +20 END (10 points), so 21 points of Figured for 20 points of CON.  Again, if you would raise all, or all but 1, clearly you should buy CON.  I think CON is now something of a character tax.  There will be a campaign standard defense and DCs.  You need enough CON to not be stunned from the damage after that defense from campaign standard attacks.  I don't think CON changes much, except for those with high Figured stats.

 

STR and CON have pretty much the same issue, so I skipped DEX for a minute.

 

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Dexterity: You're targeting DEX skills, and to a lesser extent initiative. Lightning Reflexes seems to be a much better deal for the initiative component. So, we should expect to see lower DEX values, though going up to 23 might be seen for those with a lot of DEX skills who want them at 14- without messing with skill levels.

 

OCV/DVC: First, I can see people buying uneven values, to represent more offensively or defensively oriented characters. Then again, it may be cheaper to use CSLs if those have been restructured in 6th. But they're both expensive. Sure, we can lower DEX inflation by decoupling, but does that save anything on the character sheet if campaigns are still defaulting to the old value ranges of 6 to 9 or so base CV?

 

SPD: Again, nothing changes unless the campaign default assumption shifts from the 4-6 baseline.

 

DEX was the sleeper.  It was easy to compute the figured value of STR and CON, but you didn't have pricing for OCV or DCV unless you extrapolated back from Figured.  DEX really cost 2 points, not 3.  Who has ever rounded their SPD down?  Decoupling SPD and dropping DEX to 2 points changes pretty much nothing.

 

I agree one would expect more variance between OCV and DCV.  Skill levels are not as big a ripoff as they were in 5e, but when you can spend 10 points for 1 skill level with all attacks, or buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV for the same price, which feels like a better deal?  OK, the skill levels could go to mental CVs or DCs, but really?  Skill levels remain cost-appropriate only at the 3 point, maybe 5 point level.  Pricing them based on a Multipower makes notional sense, but practically does not price out right.

 

In my view, the sum of enhancing DEX skills and enhancing initiative should sum to cost of DEX.  More on that later.

 

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Intelligence: Nothing much changes here. Perception and Skill Rolls will still drive it.

 

Presence: Not much changes here.

 

Agreed - but I think here is where the review was not done.  I remember initially thinking "Wait - shouldn't DEX be 1 point?"  It boosts skill rolls, and provides a second benefit (initiative).  Isn't that what INT and PRE do (providing PER and PRE attack & defense).

 

On reflection, I still think they should be the same price, but that price should be 2 points across the board.  Then we should look at:

 

 - skill levels.  +1 to all rolls, at the same time, based on a single stat should be 5 points (the stat with a -1 limitation), and the price should keep dropping as the uses get more restricted, based on it being more limited.

 - PER should work like skill levels - Limited INT, at +5 for +1 to all PER rolls.

 - Lightning Reflexes are limited DEX - only for initiative is a -1 limitation to DEX; greater limitations for more restricted initiative.

 - PRE attacks should be +1d6/5 points, again a -1 limitation, bigger for limited use of PRE attacks like only to frighten.

 

Where did PRE defense go, you ask?  I would remove it from PRE, so let's move on.

 

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Ego: That 11 breakpoint to get a 4 mental combat value goes away, so we should see a lot less characters with 11 Egos. However, the cost has dropped, so buying bigger chunks to resist mental powers might be more common. Characters who need to make Ego rolls to overcome Complications, or players who like to Push might buy it up.

 

Mental Combat Values: Basically driven by whether or not you're a mentalist. Not much change there.

 

EGO is lower powered DEX, INT and PRE.  There are EGO based rolls, but not in huge quantities.  It also resists mental attacks, which is nice.    But I think 1 point is the right price - it is not as good as the three above.  It becomes harder to price as more mental attacks makes it way more useful.

 

This is where I would put PRE defense.  You can be big and scary, but easily intimidated, or unimpressive, but not easily impressed.  EGO covers the latter better than PRE.

 

So how do we break that down?  I think it becomes a -1 limitation to only defend against PRE attacks, and -1 to provide both rolls and resistance to mental attacks. Yes, that is a bit of a bargain in a high-mental-power game, but any other approach means always limit EGO to "does not defend against mental attacks".

 

The more I consider it, the more I think mCV should have a base of 0.  That eliminates selling back mOCV  for characters lacking mental powers (and the attendant question of what deficiency, compared to Joe Average, this actually represents), and suggests the average person has no mental combat capability or experience.  It changes nothing cost-wise.  The Mentalist who previously bought a 7 mOCV now buys a 4, and has exactly the same chance to hit a target who bought no mDCV.

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

PD/ED/REC/END/STUN: If the basic guidelines for attack DCs and defense levels don't change, we could run into a similar problem of the increased costs not being met by the increase in character build points.

 

OK, I would separate PD/ED out.  Those are unchanged, other than not getting free defenses for physical stats.  Your defense totals will not change.  But no one ever relied entirely on their base PD/ED, did they?  It was always bought up, now you just don't get a discount.

 

REC/END/STUN - pre- 6e, how many of us ever looked at a character who ran out of END too fast and said "I will buy more REC and END" instead of "I will put Reduced END on some powers"?  Similarly, if you got KOd too much, clearly the problem was that you needed more defenses.  To me, these were overpriced.  That is the only reason STR/CON inflation did not escalate even more - you didn't REALLY get the value out of the extra STUN, REC and END.

 

Now, if I look at a character with a 12 DC attack (6 END) and 30 meters of movement (3 END), spending 15 points on 1/2 END for that attack doesn't feel like as great a deal any more.  I could buy +10 REC and +25 END instead.  Spending an extra 3 END per phase at SPD 5 means I will spend 15 a turn and recover 10, so I can last 5 turns.  That extra REC recovers STUN as well, and that extra END can be used for things other than my attack.

 

Instead of +5 PD/+5 ED, I could buy +10 STUN and +5 REC.  If I soak up three hits in the first turn, I'm at the same STUN at the start of the second.  OK, that's not as terrific, as my extra 10 STUN is still gone, but that extra 10 STUN also helps me out against AVAD, STUN drain and mental blasts, and my REC is recovering END as well as STUN, so at least this is a valid option.  Maybe I should buy +15 REC and no extra STUN - that saves be buying extra END or reduced END as well.

 

Early on, I built a Super based on much higher REC, minor defenses and some Damage Reduction.  He also used APG Regeneration (he took BOD from campaign standard attacks).  He worked pretty well.  He also had a 3 or 4 DCV - decent OCV, but not a defensive combatant.

 

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out above, 6e did not take the risk of changing builds markedly.  The sample Supers still hover around 23 DEX, and their OCV/DCV matches, and is typically aligned with the old DEX and EGO calcs.  Only one sample character has a difference (all of one point) between OCV and DCV.  Their REC, STUN and END are their old figured numbers from STR and CON in almost every case.  The characteristics prices all changed, but we just translated identical from 5e, rather than having new characters for the new edition.  To me, an opportunity lost.  Taurus doesn't even get the full STR add for his HKA, and buys Leaping up for his enhanced STR even though he runs faster. 

 

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

But what happens to the cost? Let's take a typical Brick, with an 18 DEX and 4 SPD. Under 5th Edition, that costs 36 pts. If a Brick still wants to have a 4 SPD and base 6 CVs  under 6th edition, but drops the DEX down to 10, the cost would be 50 pts. So, that same brick is paying 39% more for his SPD and CVs. Yet the increase in the base points is only 28.5%. So, even by ditching DEX completely (and he'll still want to spend some number of points on LR, which I assume has been recosted) there's a disparity.

 

Let's say you want a 60 STR and 28 CON under the old system. That gets you an 18 REC, 56 END and 44 STUN (not counting Body) for free, and 12 PD/6 ED. Let's say you boost your PD to 30 and your ED to 20. That'll cost 50 (STR) + 36 (CON) + 18 (PD) + 14 (ED) = 118 character points.

 

Under the new system, we decide on 60 STR, because still a brick (+50 pts); set CON to what? 20? that's not superhuman and we're a Brick, so let's say we go up to 23 for the CON rolls and stun resistance (+13); assuming we still want defenses at the same levels, we're still going with 30 PD (+28) and 20 ED (+18); we still need enough END to fuel that STR, but maybe go with 50 as a nice, round number (+6); high stun seems a good idea, so let's set it to 50 (+15). That's a total of 130 character points. That's an increase of 10%. This works out a bit better than the DEX stuff. 

 

The total of both the DEX and the STR/CON stuff under 5th: 154 pts. Under 6th: 180. Net change of 17%. So, taken together, this offsets with the bump in build points to 400.

 

I don't think percentage increase to characteristic costs is a fair measure.  Other than characteristics, where are the huge cost changes?  I suggest there are none.  So going from 350 to 400 points indicates the % of points spent on characteristics should go from x/350 in 5e to x+50/400 in 6e. 

 

Your example spends 14 points on DEX related characteristics, and 12 more on STR/CON related abilities, so 30 points.  He has another 20 points to use for other purposes.  Now, he's very low DEX, so he's not getting hit as hard as many characters.

 

If he were a 35 DEX, 12 CV, 7 SPD martial artist, he goes from 75 + 25  100 points invested to 50 + 90 + 50 = 190 points invested.  But maybe he was getting too sweet a deal to begin with - DEX was far too cost-effective.  For 50 points (the other 50 moves SPD from 2 to 7 in either model), he got +9 OCV, +9 DCV and +7 to all DEX rolls.  Is that really only worth 50 points?  7 DEX skill levels alone would have cost 35, and only enhance one skill (not a base DEX roll) at a time, so that's 15 points (less, really) for +9 OCV and +9 DCV.  Appropriate pricing?

 

Of course, that is why you could not be a Super without being more agile than an Olympic gymnast, and your slippery Rogue had to have a better base OCV than the Fighter's combat training provided.  Buying DEX was cheaper than buying one or two components of DEX.  Now it isn't.

 

Some characters will get points back, others will have to scrape up some points,  but I think overall the result is closer to getting what you paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

PG I would not expect CON to go down. Who wants to get Stunned? Plus CON is cheaper now.

 

True. I don't expect it'd change much, except that breakpoints may shift. I was just speculating on how much the change may shift build paradigms. It seems to me the only major shift in a Champions game might just be lower DEX, with initiative made up with LR for some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

In 5e, I found STR of 13 or 18 pretty common, 13 especially for those "low STR" characters. 

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. In regards to STR, I can see a drop down for some of those low STR characters, but I'd personally take a bit of STR on them just for the carrying capacity in a Champions game, so I don't know if there'd be a lot of shift for me, even if I was never exposed to the old building habits. If I have 400 pts to spend, I'm going to drop 5 points on STR so I can carry innocents and wounded teammates out of harm's way. I might go 10 on a purely non-physical sort, but my preconceptions of supers involve a lot of physical activity.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't think CON changes much, except for those with high Figured stats.

 

Agreed. I think it might dip a little because you don't need to look at break points for figureds, but being stunned sucks.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

how many of us ever looked at a character who ran out of END too fast and said "I will buy more REC and END"

 

I honestly didn't think of it from this perspective. I always build things so my REC ends up being a good chunk of my END and STUN. Probably just personal bias creeping in. Most official character builds used to take the figured value, and I think they'd continue to buy enough under decoupled to get back up to similar levels.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out above, 6e did not take the risk of changing builds markedly

 

I was wondering about that, thanks.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I don't think percentage increase to characteristic costs is a fair measure. 

 

Well, I did say "bad math." :D But really, just intended to be a little closer look than eyeballing things. I was also looking at what percentage of total points similar characteristics builds turned out to be, which is slightly lower, but as I noted somewhere above really shouldn't affect builds too much. Just looking to see if there was any shift in the character building paradigm under 6th.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Some characters will get points back, others will have to scrape up some points,  but I think overall the result is closer to getting what you paid for.

 

I agree. I'm thinking the high DEX builds would be impacted the most. So, overall, it seems the main thing affected here is DEX inflation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When 6th first came out, I took a group of home-grown supervillains (Vermin) and converted them to 6th edition, with the caveat that I took advantage of decoupling to adjust a few of the formerly calculated characteristics a bit for the 6th edition versions (mostly OMCV, with a few changes to OCV and/or DCV).  In 5th edition, all were at 350 points except the team leader (Cockroach), who was at 375.

 

I found that bricks tended to get hurt more than other archetypes, for roughly the same amount of effectiveness.  Everyone else came out pretty much even, with some saving a significant amount of points in the conversion process.

  • Cockroach (high-defense brick):  444 points - considering the 5E version had +25 points, that means the same character effectively cost +19 extra
  • Flea (shrinker):  380 points - he effectively gained points in the conversion
  • Gopher (tunneling gadgeteer):  404 points
  • Maus (two-headed brick):  422 points
  • Mink (martial artist):  400 points
  • Pigeon (flying brawler):  378 points - another significant point gain
  • Weasel (mentalist):  406 points
  • Willard (animal control):  388 points
  • Willard's summoned Rat Pack:  went from 300 to 350 points.

Now, that was with a fairly straight conversion (keeping primary characteristics and most figured characteristics exactly the same).  OMCV for non-mentalists was generally kept at its base value of 3 (as a GM, I don't generally allow people to sell back their CVs below 3 - otherwise, practically all non-mentalists have an OMCV of 0 and get a 9-point "mentalist tax refund").

 

If drawing Vermin up from scratch in 6th, I'd have done things like bought Cockroach's DEX at 18 instead of 20 (then use Lightning Reflexes to increase his "initiative" back up to 20), thus saving 2 points; or had Flea's STR at 15 instead of 20.  Oh, and not put so many points into DMCV.  Basically, get rid of some things that were only done for cost effectiveness sake, rather than character concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hugh's analysis is excellent from a mathematical angle. I've played mainly Heroic since translating to 6th, and doing a flat translation (same stats from 5th into 6th) saw roughly a 20-25% increase in Stat cost. Not a big deal as points are points and can be adjusted to whatever the play group feels is right... but what we did notice was that with PCs able to get value for skill levels rather than just buying raw DEX, then we saw a proliferation of various skill levels on various maneuvers and actions... which we really liked. Instead of everyone being the same generic character, stat wise, characters started to be more varied in stats, and their skill levels reflected specific skills and actions they were good at, rather than being generally good at everything.

 

At least for us, this decoupling had an added benefit of freeing up characters to spend points on being good at their unique schticks, and that allowed for some cool differentiation in characters. That may be less universal of an outcome for some play groups, but I've enjoyed that change to builds that effected the over all feel of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...