HS 6e is mechanically the best version of the rules; dissenting views welcome

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Hugh, the HERO system is more than just supers.  As I stated in my earlier post, in heroic level games, I usually leave the figured characteristics at the default levels.

 

In Heroic games, I routinely bought up PD to match ED, where STR was less than CON.  More END for spellcasters, maybe more REC, was pretty common.  What I found happened a lot was that I kept SUN, END and REC at levels I likely would not have purchased, had they not been free thanks to my STR, CON and (on occasion) BOD.

 

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Regarding selling back OCV and DCV...you’re choosing a corner case to build an entire argument.  Very, VERY few people with high DEX characters are trying to reduce their calculated OCV and DCV.  Since I’m not a designer for 7e, I don’t have to worry about that situation....but I’m confident I could come up with something simple to handle it if I needed to.

 

I don't think a character whose OCV nd DCV are not 1/3 of DEX is necessarily a corner case.  A 35 DEX speedster with a 9 OCV and 15 DCV seems quite reasonable to me.  A lot of Brocks rarely miss (high OCV) but are often hit (lower DCV).  If you had a high DEX, of course you kept the high CVs.  If you did not have a high DEX, but wanted high CVs...you bought the high DEX and backfilled a justification for it.  You would certainly  not port in your 15 STR, 15 CON, 8 DEX cleric!

 

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Your sleight of hand magician and other examples may not have a high DEX...they just have skill levels with DEX rolls.  DEX is primarily a combat stat - if you want a noncombat character with good DEX rolls, use Skill Levels.  If you want a character who acts first in the phase but is inept at hitting people and/or dodging, use Lightning Reflexes.

 

As Doc noted, it seems a lot more intuitive for a high DEX character with poor combat skills to buy DEX, and a low DEX character who is good at combat to buy CV.  But you never did the latter pre-6e, because it was cost-prohibitive.  As to the former, I never saw a heroic Rogue with base CVs lower than the Heroic Fighter who trained for combat all his life - but that Fighter never had a DEX of 8 or 10 either. 

 

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Every stat you mention except BODY is a figured characteristic in 5E and earlier.  They don’t need to do extra things, and all of them are needed unless you want to completely redesign HERO.  If I were designing a new edition that included figured characteristics, I’d be tempted to include additional figured characteristics for BODY...but I’d also make the No Figured Characteristics limitation vary by stat instead of being a flat -1/2.

 

And now we have CON, BOD, STUN, END, REC, PD, ED SPD as 6e characteristics that only do one thing.  So what? 

 

I have been deliberately ignoring COM.  Should it have been Figured from PRE, or vice versa?

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

There’s a difference between optional complexity and mandatory complexity.  A heroic-level character in 5E can choose to raise their figured stats, or leave them alone, and be okay either way, with the one exception of buying up a partial value for DEX (and yes, I have had a 20 DEX character with a 3 SPD).  A heroic-level character in 6E must raise those same stats (and new ones like OCV and DCV) or they are stuck at “guy on the street” level.

 

A Heroic level character in either edition has to buy up characteristics or be at "guy on the street" level.  The only difference is that, in 6e, he considers each stat in comparison to "guy on the street", rather than a different starting point.

 

Have you ever had a 12, 13, 15, 17 or 18 DEX character with SPD 2?  How about a DEX 14, 16 or 19 DEX character at all?

 

4 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Even in superhero games, I often leave figured stats alone.  SPD gets bought up because the default for the games I’ve played or run is almost always 5, and REC usually needs to be bought up (save for bricks).  If you buy up CON (which is often justified by mutants and similar origins being more resilient than the average man), you can often leave END and STUN at their calculated values.  PD and ED are frequently bought up, but I have several characters that just took Armor, Force Field, or similar powers while leaving base PD and ED alone (particularly common for powersuit characters).

 

Any origin or backstory practically had to justify high CON (or you spend a lot of time Stunned and burn points on figured stats) and high DEX (or you suck at combat).  I do not consider that a game feature I would highlight.

 

3 hours ago, Fedifensor said:

Using corner case situations and assuming the player has no assistance in character creation such as recommended values for stats, examples in the character creation section, or a GM that can assist is simply disingenuous.

 

If the slow Brick needs to get to a 9 OCV and 5 SPD, then the GM allows the character to be rebuilt, as any competent GM would allow if there’s an error made because the new player didn’t understand the rules.  And in a heroic campaign, the fantasy cleric more likely to need a 6 OCV and a 3 SPD.

 

These statements are equally applicable to any edition, whether Figureds are in play or not.  6e, however, makes it much more practical for the player to build the character he envisions, priced equitably with other characters.  The Cleric can buy his 6 OCV and 3 SPD, keep his 8 DEX and 3 DCV (relying on that heavy armor) and pay 21 points [15 for OCV, 10 for SPD -4 for DEX)  In 5e, he pays 15 for 3 skill levels, assuming all his weapons are a group for this purpose, 12 for SPD, and saves 6 on DEX, so that's 21 points again.

 

His Warrior teammate, who has 6 OCV, 6 DCV, 17 DEX and 3 SPD pays 24 points in 5e - 3 points for +3 DCV, +1 with all DEX rolls (2 more and he can have +2) and +9 combat order.

 

In 6e, he actually has to pay the value of his greater abilities.  But he can also get by with a 12 DEX if he does not envision someone incredibly agile, without being required to pay massively more than the guy who decides his warrior really is also very agile after all.

[Sean Waters]

I say this as someone who has played Hero with figured characteristics and without: I prefer figured characteristics, on a purely instinctive level, but not having them makes much more sense.  I think it makes characters a little harder to build, and is a slightly higher barrier to entry for new players who do not know where to pitch things.  I think the cost of some of the characteristics is wrong and I think we could probably lose quite a few of the 'primary' ones in favour of skill bonuses - that might take some tinkering - but, overall, it is a step in the right direction.

[assault]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Any origin or backstory practically had to justify high CON (or you spend a lot of time Stunned and burn points on figured stats) and high DEX (or you suck at combat).

 

In superhero games, no they don't. The benchmarks in superhero games aren't the same as in heroic games unless the GM says they are.

 

For a superhero to buy 20, 23 or 26 Dex (for example) is entirely unproblematic. It's only when you start to apply arbitrary/meaningless benchmarks that it becomes so. Ditto with Con.

 

Heroic games are different, but Normal Characteristic Maxima and lower point totals give them different dynamics anyway.

[assault]

On the other hand, I find the way 6e handles Complications rather tempting. I've traditionally spent more time deciding on Disadvantages than building the rest of a character.

 

Of course, that's basically just a case of bumping up the starting points, and leaving the suggested power level the same.

[Duke Bushido]

I got no dog in this fight, so I'm not going to go through and quote / reply, etc.

 

I just want to make comments regarding some things posted recently in this thread:

 

I always bought high CON.  Always.  Not for _any_ mechanical reason, though, as the GM I learned HERO under didn't use CON-Stunning at all: he felt it slowed down an already-sluggish combat system.  To this day, I don't use it much, and when it do, it's part of the campaign guidelines (which should give a pretty good idea of how little I use it).  At least, I _always_ bought it up in Heroic levels.  I _usually_ bought it up for Supers, but not always.   Why?  I hate to throw this word out, as I have been taught repeatedly what a horrible mistake it is, but I did it for character concept.  I felt Constitution-- the general health and robustness of the character-- was a _huge_ part of being the larger-than-life adventurer.  Croc Davies, Doc Savage, and the other heroes of my youth-- the didn't catch the cold; they didn't succumb to Montezuma's Revenge.  When lesser men were killed with poison darts, the heroes were laid low, but they recovered.  Their ability to soldier on while lesser men dropped with exhaustion--- the list goes on, but it all fell back to their legendary robustness and good health.  Thus, my adventurers had high CON, and there was no real "meta gaming the system" behind it: it was pure truth to conception that drove it.

 

I also found myself frequently having to buy a pip or two of PD as STR wasn't quite as important in some characters, though I'd just as often sell it back to even things up and to, again, stay true to concept.

 

I can't answer for the person to whom this question was directly put, but I can say with complete honesty that I have had more than one character with an 18 DEX and a SPD 2.  I will temper this by saying that, as best I recall, this was always in supers games, because I can't remember a single Heroic character with a DEX above 14, ever.

 

 

Hunh. 

 

I had a couple of other short comments I wanted to make, but I fail to remember them now that I've type those.   Accursed takes-too-long touchscreen!!!  Grrrrr!

 

Moving along:

 

I don't have a big problem with the elimination of Figureds.  Never did, mostly because it's easy enough to completely ignore.  (I mentioned before that we tried it a few times over the years, for building aliens or fantasy races, but none of us ever really loved it.)   When I heard the rumors that Characteristics were being completely "reworked," I had hoped it would be in a way that made them more granular-- more capable of having _useful_ utility at the lower (i.e., "Heroic" end of the scale, where HERO really shows it's Supers roots and kind of breaks down).  Alas, that didn't really happen.

 

One thing I think would have helped a bit would have been getting rid of "killing attack" and instead having a "Killing" Advantage.  In this way, dice of damage from various weapons could be better-modeled by changing the number of dice as well as adding or removing a half-die or a pip, but still fall within a sort of "range" of damage.  Eliminating the STUN Lotto doesn't seem like a terrible thing, either.  (But I will grant that is entirely an opinion, and likely to be an acute minority.)

 

I would like to have seen Skills repriced and re-worked as well, at least an "option skill system" for Heroic-level games that would allow for an actual difference between say INT 10 and INT 11 or 12-- something that makes Heroic Level characters _distinct_ from one other, and something to encourage "settling" for a number that isn't divisible by some meta-mechanical magic number.

 

In either of these cases, costing wouldn't have mattered to me, because it would be a part of genuine improvement to my favorite part of the game: non-supers.

 

I didn't get it.  I didn't even get a half-step to it.   I did get an entire encyclopedia's worth of expensive rules books that continue to not solve this problem, which goes a long way toward explaining my complete lack of interest in it (beyond Basic or any other "one thin book" type-game that might come from this, of course).

 

 

 

carry on!    I'm still enjoying the conversation.  

 

 

 

Duke

 

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, assault said:

 

In superhero games, no they don't. The benchmarks in superhero games aren't the same as in heroic games unless the GM says they are.

 

For a superhero to buy 20, 23 or 26 Dex (for example) is entirely unproblematic. It's only when you start to apply arbitrary/meaningless benchmarks that it becomes so. Ditto with Con.

 

Heroic games are different, but Normal Characteristic Maxima and lower point totals give them different dynamics anyway.

 

The Super does not exist in a vaccuum. He lives in a world.  That world has benchmarks, to which it should be possible to compare the Super.  Is he similar to an average person?  Lots of characters in the comics seem to have physical abilities that are in the "average" range, although I would expect most are a bit better on the CON front due to their lifestyle.  But that should probably still leave them comparable to a soldier, police officer or firefighter.  If they are, though, then they do not have the CON to survive Supers combat - they will spend most of their time Stunned.

 

Many Supers do not demonstrate unusual agility either.  They are probably a bit better than average, but more of a 12-15 then a 23-26.  But you will never hit in Supers combat like that, so you need to go beyond the cop or soldier, beyond the highly trained agent, beyond the olympic level gymnast - just so you can barely compete as a Super.

 

Funny...in the comics, those Bricks are hit by Agent blasters.  They are hit by thugs with knives and guns.  But not in a Supers game.  We have to design special agents who have at least a small chance of hitting our Supers - special weapons with +5 OCV or AoE accurate and the like.

[SpaceknightFenix]

Having watched people for a great deal of my life, I disagree wholeheartedly on heroes not demonstrating exceptional agility. Name an Avenger or member of the Justice League who is not exceptionally agile. Those who lack considerable agility aren't common and the ones that do exist often don't last long. Among the Avengers, the only two I can think of that really don't have exceptional agility are Doctor Druid and Scarlet Witch, neither of whom need agility to be effective heroes. On the Justice League the only one I can think of is Swamp Thing, once more, a character that doesn't need exceptional agility, because their power set doesn't need them to be anything like nimble.

 

Now, the X-Men, those guys tend to be a fair amount slower, except for the main team, probably because most of them are not exceptionally well-trained or suited for combat, but even the main team is nothing compared to dex monsters like Spider-Man, and he is a monster in combat.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

"Exceptional" agility compared to who?

 

Hydra agents  don't miss Avengers like the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man/Goliath/Ant-Man (he is tiny, not agile), the Wasp (ditto), Scarlet Witch, Hercules, Vision...that gets us to what, #60 of the first series of Avengers...

 

JLA?  Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter (Cyborg in new continuity), Aguaman, Atom (again, tiny, not agile), Elongated Man, even Red Tornado - none are known for exceptional agility (that's up to issue #106).

 

Show me, let's say, three instances for any of those characters when someone remarks on how exceptional their agility is.  Beyond, say, a high school athlete, much less a legendary achievement.

 

Agility is a big part of Spidey's power suite; also Beast and Nightcrawler.

 

Why do you consider training to feed DEX, rather than OCV and/or DCV?  Would training as a locksmith, or a stage magician, or horseback riding (all agility skills) also boost their DEX and, byy extension, combat skills?  Earlier, you suggested training gained skill bonuses and skill levels, not DEX.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Many Supers do not demonstrate unusual agility either.  They are probably a bit better than average, but more of a 12-15 then a 23-26.  But you will never hit in Supers combat like that, so you need to go beyond the cop or soldier, beyond the highly trained agent, beyond the olympic level gymnast - just so you can barely compete as a Super.

If your GM doesn't want your campaign to feature universal 20+ DEX, why is your GM giving NPCs 8+ CV?  This isn't a game system problem, it's a campaign guidelines problem.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I guess it depends on your definition of "exceptional."  The Thing is pretty slow and clumsy, but most superheroes are pretty agile -- more so then the average person -- if for no other reason than having combat training. Is that exceptional?  Well compared to me it is.  Compared to The Flash, not so much.

 

I would say that the superhero without at least 14 Dex is the extreme outlier.  But does that mean that DEX and CV should be linked necessarily?  Maybe.  The thing is, the cost of CV and the cost of DEX aren't far off from 6th edition compared to previous ones (and is generally cheaper, especially the higher it goes):

 

(table deleted for being in error and misleading -- and confusing -- and to avoid further replies to it)

 

So what you have is flexibility to buy outliers (characters who may have great CV but low agility or huge agility but maybe low OCV for some reason) plus a cost savings.  Overall its a win, in terms of character design.

*EDIT: my math is wrong, for the sub-10 DEX 6th edition costs.  Because you have to buy down the CV to get it under 3, they'd be much cheaper.  For example, 3 Dex/1 OCV-DCV would be -34 points.  The cost on that range is too high, because you get 10 DEX and 3 CV for free.  In fact the entire table is a mess, and when I have some more time I'll fix it up.  But the point remains: its cheaper and more flexible.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "exceptional."  The Thing is pretty slow and clumsy, but most superheroes are pretty agile -- more so then the average person -- if for no other reason than having combat training. Is that exceptional?  Well compared to me it is.  Compared to The Flash, not so much.

 

I would say that the superhero without at least 14 Dex is the extreme outlier.  But does that mean that DEX and CV should be linked necessarily?  Maybe.  The thing is, the cost of CV and the cost of DEX aren't far off from 6th edition compared to previous ones (and is generally cheaper, especially the higher it goes):

 

 

So what you have is flexibility to buy outliers (characters who may have great CV but low agility or huge agility but maybe low OCV for some reason) plus a cost savings.  Overall its a win, in terms of character design.

I have no clue how you get a point cost increase of 6 per row in your 6th column.  It's clearly not per +1 CV since that costs 7-10 points depending on how you get it, unless there's some obscure cost savings.  I don't understand what you're showing with that table or how you derive the results. 

 

I ran a similar chart, here's what I get.  5e Cost is the cost of the DEX and enough additional SPD to not have a non-integer SPD.  6e Cost is the cost for the same amount of DEX, SPD, and CV.  The LO cost assumes OCV comes from 2 point CSLs, the HI cost uses actual OCV. 

DEX	5e Cost		6e Cost (LO)	6e Cost (HI)
3	-14		-28		-34
6	-8		-15		-18
9	-2		-2		-2
12	14		21		24
15	20		34		40
18	26		47		56
21	42		70		82
24	48		83		98
27	54		96		114
30	60		109		130
33	76		132		156
36	82		145		172
39	88		158		188
42	104		181		214
45	110		194		230

My math shows that 6E makes it more expensive to maintain the same effects at any level of 5e DEX past 10. 

Cutting SPD out of the equation by switching 5e to NFC DEX doesn't change this, since +1 CV from 5e DEX NFC is 6 real and +1 CV in 6e is 7-10 real. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I have no clue how you get a point cost increase of 6 per row in your 6th column.  It's clearly not per +1 CV since that costs 7-10 points depending on how you get it, unless there's some obscure cost savings.

 

OCV and DCV are stats.  They cost 5 points each.  Hence, +1 overall CV (OCV and DCV) is 10 total points.  Every stage of the chart, its a flat 10 points added.  For each point of CV past 3 (which you get for free) it costs 10 more points, so at CV 8, that's 5 higher, so its +50 points.  That part is pretty flat.

 

The cost of DEX is the amount of the score over 10, times two.  So 33 dex is 23x2 in cost (46 points).  I'm ONLY looking at CV and Dexterity, not skill rolls or speed.  The reason for this is that the discussion is about those two aspects, not speed. 

 

If you add speed in, then every 10 DEX, the cost shoots up rapidly for 6th edition.  On the other hand if you add skill rolls in, they're slightly cheaper, because its only 2 points per DEX rather than 3.

Here's the revised, corrected table:

 

 

OK now with the revised and corrected data, the old system was more efficient: it cost less to have the same level of DEX/CV than it does in 6th edition.  Especially if you factor in the cost with Speed added in; as soon as the Dex begins to add more points of speed for free, it becomes significantly cheaper -- nearly 100 points at 36 DEX.  Which is why everyone's DEX was so high: it was super efficient to buy lots of DEX (and CON).

Now in previous editions it was uncommon at best to find superheroes with sub-21 DEX, most at the sweet spot of 23 which gave you 4.3 Speed and 8 OCV/DCV plus a 14- roll base, so it was a convergence of point efficiency.  But how many were bought that way because it made sense (my egoist is more agile and dexterous than a gold medal gymnast!), or because it was a bitchen point break? 

 

In the end, 6th edition gives you better flexibility, and in the range of most character designs.

 

However I was wrong, 6th edition doesn't give a cost break except at the lowest levels.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

36 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

OCV and DCV are stats.  They cost 5 points each.  Hence, +1 overall CV (OCV and DCV) is 10 total points.  Every stage of the chart, its a flat 10 points added.  For each point of CV past 3 (which you get for free) it costs 10 more points, so at CV 8, that's 5 higher, so its +50 points.  That part is pretty flat.

 

The cost of DEX is the amount of the score over 10, times two.  So 33 dex is 23x2 in cost (46 points).  I'm ONLY looking at CV and Dexterity, not skill rolls or speed.  The reason for this is that the discussion is about those two aspects, not speed. 

 

If you add speed in, then every 10 DEX, the cost shoots up rapidly for 6th edition.  On the other hand if you add skill rolls in, they're slightly cheaper, because its only 2 points per DEX rather than 3.

Here's the revised, corrected table:

 

 

As you can see, the cost starts to diverge the higher you go.  At up to DEX 21, its slightly cheaper, but after that 6th edition starts to become more expensive and previous editions get a cost break.  Basically the higher your DEX, the more efficient it was to buy.  The lower your DEX, the cheaper in 6th edition.

Now in previous editions it was uncommon at best to find superheroes with sub-21 DEX, most at the sweet spot of 23 which gave you 4.3 Speed and 8 OCV/DCV plus a 14- roll base, so it was a convergence of point efficiency.  But how many were bought that way because it made sense (my egoist is more agile and dexterous than a gold medal gymnast!), or because it was a bitchen point break? 

 

In the end, 6th edition gives you better flexibility, and in the range of most character designs, a cost break as well.

Why do you list sub-default values, such as 9 DEX 3 CV, as having positive cost pre-6th but negative cost in 6th?  I do not understand the source of your chart's numbers and suspect it to be deeply and severely flawed. 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "exceptional."  The Thing is pretty slow and clumsy, but most superheroes are pretty agile -- more so then the average person -- if for no other reason than having combat training. Is that exceptional?  Well compared to me it is.  Compared to The Flash, not so much.

 

I don't think the Thing is slow and clumsy, but I also don't think he is "exceptional" rather than "above average, but not markedly so".

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would say that the superhero without at least 14 Dex is the extreme outlier.  But does that mean that DEX and CV should be linked necessarily?  Maybe.  The thing is, the cost of CV and the cost of DEX aren't far off from 6th edition compared to previous ones

 

Sure - a Super who is not a bit better than the average person would be an outlier.  But how many Hero Games Supers have STR, BOD, INT or EGO of 10-13?  Quite a few, I think.

 

How many have under 20 DEX or CON?  When the "extreme low outlier" is at the peak of normal human, that does not fit the source material.

 

The issue started in 1e with the sample characters, which made 23 DEX the "typical Super" level.  It could as easily have been 12 or 15, and they would have better matched the source material - as noted by

 

3 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

If your GM doesn't want your campaign to feature universal 20+ DEX, why is your GM giving NPCs 8+ CV?  This isn't a game system problem, it's a campaign guidelines problem.

 

The problem is that, by the time we defined 20 as "the breakpoint to Legendary" in games like Espionage, Justice Inc. and Fantasy Hero, the CU had established the typical DEX and SPD of Supers at Legendary levels, going up from there.

 

Decoupling CV from DEX provided an opportunity (one not taken) to bring DEX back into line.  The Thing can have a 13 DEX, a 5 DCV and an OCV of 10, reflecting him being a bit faster than the average guy, even better at dodging, and a very skilled fighter.  That option was not really there pre-6e, as it was cost-prohibitive.

 

The transition from 5e to 6e made it clear that the real bargain stat was DEX - getting comparable OCV and DCV any other way was less effective and vastly more expensive.

[Doc Democracy]

The other thing about needing a high DEX to be combat effective means that, for example, Thing only needs three points to have 14 or 15 or less in Acrobatics.  I just think that there is so many things tied together pre-6th that I am pleased to see the teased apart in the current rules.

 

I like high DEX to mean that the character is dexterous, not that they are good at hitting things.

 

Doc

[assault]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Now in previous editions it was uncommon at best to find superheroes with sub-21 DEX, most at the sweet spot of 23 which gave you 4.3 Speed and 8 OCV/DCV plus a 14- roll base, so it was a convergence of point efficiency.  But how many were bought that way because it made sense (my egoist is more agile and dexterous than a gold medal gymnast!), or because it was a bitchen point break?

 

There's the benchmark problem again.

 

A superhero who was at gold medal gymnast level (Daredevil? Robin?) would have much more than 23 Dex.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Why do you list sub-default values, such as 9 DEX 3 CV, as having positive cost pre-6th but negative cost in 6th?

 

Yeah you're right lower than 10 DEX should cost negative points in the old chart: 3 dex would be -21 (-34 6th), 6 dex would be -12 (-18 6th), and 9 dex would be -3 (-2 6th).

 

The old column was a mess, which doesn't surprise me (I was barely awake and in a hurry).  The data I have for 6th otherwise should be accurate, since I triple checked the 6th edition numbers and gave my methodology.

 

I've since updated the post to reflect the corrected data.

[Christopher R Taylor]

A superhero who was at gold medal gymnast level (Daredevil? Robin?) would have much more than 23 Dex.

 

Well given that anything over 20 is extreme human outside range, 23 is a pretty good "nobody gets better than this" human level.  That's where I'd peg an Olympic level gymnast -- based on STR, of course, the only quantified stat we have to work with. I mean I guess you could multiply INT x10 for IQ, but intelligence in Hero is less about how smart you are than how perceptive you are, how quick your mind is, and how good a memory you have.  You can have a low INT and be smart as a whip, just slow or imperceptive, or have a gigantic INT but be basically stupid but highly perceptive with a great memory.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah you're right lower than 10 DEX should cost negative points in the old chart: 3 dex would be -21 (-34 6th), 6 dex would be -12 (-18 6th), and 9 dex would be -3 (-2 6th).

 

But go ahead and pull out a calculator.  The data I have otherwise should be accurate, since I triple checked the 6th edition numbers and gave my methodology.  I get not LIKING the data, but that doesn't mean its wrong.

No, when you have the wrong numbers then your numbers are wrong.  I don't give a caped donkey about liking things, I fully agree that DEX was underpriced before 6e and removing figured characteristics was the correct decision.  That doesn't change the fact that your table is full of Sewer-Man's extra-putrid leavings.  12 DEX 4 CV does not cost 36 points. 

 

This table describes the relationship between DEX, CV, and cost.  The DEX column is the DEX of the character.  The CV column is the CV of a 5e character with that DEX.  The 5e NFC column is the cost for a character in 5e to buy that much DEX (and thus CV) with No Figured Characteristics.  The 6e column is the cost for the given DEX and CV in 6e.  The 6e no DEX column is the cost for 10 DEX and the given CV in 6e.  The 5e _ 6e column shows the relationship between 5e NFC and 6e.  The 5e _ 6e no DEX column shows the relationship between 5e NFC and 6e no DEX. 

DEX	CV		5e NFC	6e	6e no DEX	5e _ 6e	5e _ 6e no DEX
3	1		-14	-34	-20		>	>
6	2		-8	-18	-10		>	>
9	3		-2	-2	0		=	<
10	3		0	0	0		=	=
11	4		2	12	10		<	<
12	4		4	14	10		<	<
15	5		10	30	20		<	<
18	6		16	46	30		<	<
21	7		22	62	40		<	<
24	8		28	78	50		<	<
27	9		34	94	60		<	<
30	10		40	110	70		<	<
33	11		46	126	80		<	<
36	12		52	142	90		<	<
39	13		58	158	100		<	<
42	14		64	174	110		<	<
45	15		70	190	120		<	<

Conclusion: ANY CV above 3 costs more in 6e than in 5e.  Period space space carriage return line feed.  6e's DEX/CV changes do not give any hero a "cost break" like you claimed, unless you're proposing that bystanders are more competent than your heroes. 

 

And what's most appalling to me this that this is mathematically obvious.  Painfully so, even.  +1 CV in 6e is 10 real.  Even 1 DCV and a 2-point CSL is 7 real.  And 3 DEX NFC is 6 real.  And 6 is a smaller number than both 7 and 10. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Look above.  I corrected and fixed the errors, before you finished this post.  I agreed that you're wrong.  And I apologize if that was insulting or upsetting.  I didn't mean to, I just wanted to add some data to the discussion and should have waited til I was more prepared and had more time.  As you can see the edited corrections show the proper data.

 

Are we cool?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Are we cool?

 

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I agreed that you're wrong. 

 

With that attitude, we are most certainly not "cool". 

[SpaceknightFenix]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

"Exceptional" agility compared to who?

 

Hydra agents  don't miss Avengers like the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man/Goliath/Ant-Man (he is tiny, not agile), the Wasp (ditto), Scarlet Witch, Hercules, Vision...that gets us to what, #60 of the first series of Avengers...

 

JLA?  Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter (Cyborg in new continuity), Aguaman, Atom (again, tiny, not agile), Elongated Man, even Red Tornado - none are known for exceptional agility (that's up to issue #106).

 

Show me, let's say, three instances for any of those characters when someone remarks on how exceptional their agility is.  Beyond, say, a high school athlete, much less a legendary achievement.

 

Agility is a big part of Spidey's power suite; also Beast and Nightcrawler.

 

Why do you consider training to feed DEX, rather than OCV and/or DCV?  Would training as a locksmith, or a stage magician, or horseback riding (all agility skills) also boost their DEX and, byy extension, combat skills?  Earlier, you suggested training gained skill bonuses and skill levels, not DEX.

Compared to normal folk, even most trained folk. People can be surprisingly clumsy, even if they are well-trained, but superheroes don't often accidentally drop things.

Green Lantern is a pilot. Hal's good enough to be considered for experimental flying, those are guys who typically flew fighter jets, which is an elite class of reflexes and perception in it's own right, excelled beyond their peers, and showed exceptional discipline. I would eat my left shoe if a guy like that didn't have exceptional agility. Martian Manhunter is a shapeshifting alien with super speed, his agility by default, is superhuman. Aquaman is a superhuman martial artist, when he is shown respect, without his super strength he can still wade through dozens of dudes in rapid succession. Elongated Man is a shapeshifter, just being a shapeshifter means you can move in ways a normal person cannot, that's agility. Red Tornado is a wind elemental housed in a robot, I somehow doubt their agility is demonstrably human. Cyborg is still faster than most folk, by a fair margin, he's not quite capable of keeping up with speedsters, but he is tuned fast enough to not just get completely torn apart by the superhumanly fast Deathstroke.

 

Depends on the high school athlete in question, an average one cannot hold their own against a dozen other people in a fight and, even without their powers, most superheroes can. Those that can't are guys like Billy Batson, who under it is a a normal kid, but with his powers, he has the speed of Mercury, which is nonsense levels of fast. Do you think that these guys are incapable of performing many of the flips that an olympic level gymnastics, with their powers?

 

I say it feeds both, physical ability isn't just derived values, you can't convert OCV levels to reflexes or carrying capacity, and if you're gonna buy higher agility skills and lightning reflexes, why didn't you just buy a higher dex? Like, I get it, the physical stats are basically meaningless in 6th edition, in a lot of regards, but that's a flaw in the system, not a remark on reality.

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, SpaceknightFenix said:

Depends on the high school athlete in question, an average one cannot hold their own against a dozen other people in a fight and, even without their powers, most superheroes can.

 

5 hours ago, SpaceknightFenix said:

I say it feeds both, physical ability isn't just derived values, you can't convert OCV levels to reflexes or carrying capacity, and if you're gonna buy higher agility skills and lightning reflexes, why didn't you just buy a higher dex? Like, I get it, the physical stats are basically meaningless in 6th edition, in a lot of regards, but that's a flaw in the system, not a remark on reality.

 

You leave me slightly bemused on where you stand.  You agree that fighting ability and physical prowess are not necessarily linked and yet call the system flawed because it reflects that...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

On 4/20/2019 at 9:47 PM, Sean Waters said:

I say this as someone who has played Hero with figured characteristics and without: I prefer figured characteristics, on a purely instinctive level, but not having them makes much more sense.  I think it makes characters a little harder to build, and is a slightly higher barrier to entry for new players who do not know where to pitch things.  I think the cost of some of the characteristics is wrong and I think we could probably lose quite a few of the 'primary' ones in favour of skill bonuses - that might take some tinkering - but, overall, it is a step in the right direction.

 

Heart and mind fighting there Sean? 🙂

 

I think it is also the difference between the system and game.  Each game should have its own guidelines, probably influenced by guidance in the system book.  I do think that the price of HERO is more upfront detailed prep by the GM (unless the GM is doing all the character building).

 

I agree that the next steps in this particular line of evolution would be teasing apart what a characteristic (like STR, DEX and CON) is compared to a game statistic (like PD, REC and OCV) which might drive some mechanical changes in how they work and are bought.  All of which might clarify issues. Evolution is a slow painful process....

[SpaceknightFenix]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

You leave me slightly bemused on where you stand.  You agree that fighting ability and physical prowess are not necessarily linked and yet call the system flawed because it reflects that...

 

Doc

No, I'm calling the idea of not using physical attributes to define attributes, to instead use what used to be derived values to define everything, a mistake. Essentially: if someone is fast and agile, don't just buy them lightning reflexes, higher skills, and OCV/DCV, buy them dex, it's what it's there for. I'm also holding 6e as flawed because dexterity has no connection to OCV/DCV, but I firmly approve of derived stats. For the odd character who is fast, but not accurate, Lightning reflexes exists. Among many other flaws.