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

[Killer Shrike]

1 hour ago, Jagged said:

This is an example of why I am not posting on this forum any more.

 

Well, that's one response, but it wasn't what I was going for. Please don't go away mad, instead consider staying and conversing. 

[Ninja-Bear]

KS if I remeber correctly, I heard that when Steve Long wrote 5th, there was still some sacred cows so to speak that he couldn’t touch. Btw I don’t miss some of the cost minimums either-say you must buy  10” flight iirc Because then you needed GM permission to buy less.

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

I agree that the 5e Damage Shield is borked. I seem to recall discussing it on these boards back in that timeframe. It is not efficient or practical. I think it would have been more correct to have the Damage Shield advantage itself include the desired functionality and just bump up its modifier a bit, or to define a variant option for Continuous itself that modified Continuous to express the "Damage Shield" behavior. 

 

I prefer a self-resetting trigger based build for a "damage shield" type of effect, personally.

Massey gives the example that Damage shield worsen from 4th (Damage Shield +1/2) to 5E (Damage Shield +1/2, Continuous +1) and I agree. However, because we are talking 6E, Damage Shield actually improved and became Damage Shield +1/4, Constant +1/2, No Range -1/2. Much better than 5E and actually cheaper than 4E (in Real Points but not in Active Points.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 1/31/2019 at 8:28 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

Well this goes back to the APG thing:

 

Do you think they should be core rules because you like them?  Because you personally _want_ them to be?  (I'm not being as ass here; I'm asking you to think about your feelings on this before answering.  That's all.)  

 

Or do you find them to be necessary for creating and running a successful campaign?  Are there concepts that can't be built without it?

 

Are they more valid than anything in the APG, or truly essential to the HERO System experience?

 

 

I view both the MA maneuver creation rules and ranged MA as more "core" than APG because I believe the ability to design maneuvers should be in the system. 

 

I would include some APG material in Core, if it were my choice - things the core rules cannot reasonably achieve.  For example, the CE to STUN, and to Suffocate, which provide effects fairly common in the source material, and pretty much impossible to pin down in the core rules.  Most, however, belongs in "optional rule" territory.

 

On 1/31/2019 at 8:28 PM, Duke Bushido said:

2  (I didn't number that first one; sorry-- on a small roll and trying to stem it) you asked  in a previous post if a HERO-designed spell was different from a D&D spell.  I said "yes," and here's more-or-less why:

It doesn't feel magic (which, thinking about it, may be a _huge_ part of why I have so much less issue with Fantasy HERO than any other fantasy game).  I wish I could express this technically, but that's an odd thing about impressions and feelings. 

For me, magic stops feeling like magic when it is governed by specific rules enabling me to know exactly what it can and cannot do.  Such definitions are essential in game rules, so we lose much of the "magic" feel.

 

On 1/31/2019 at 8:28 PM, Duke Bushido said:

As I noted, I am more-or-less in agreement here: when the SETAC was happening, I was rather hoping to see Base Characteristics cost-adjusted to resolve this issue.  Boy was I surprised.

 

Thanks for that tidbit, you old Softie, you. ;D  Seriously though: thanks for that tidbit.  It tells me that weren't simply outright opposed to Figureds, even if you didn't care for them.  Why is that important?  I don't know.  Just more of that "feel" stuff, I suppose.  Thanks for the support of COM, too.

My inclination was to revise the cost of Figureds (STUN, REC, END), revise the formuli a bit and end up with cost-balanced primaries and figured.  That would also add "no figured" being a limitation that removed the cost of the figureds from the specific stat (so a much greater limitation for CON than for STR or BOD).  Steve's point, that once we balanced the costs we did not need figured's, makes sense to me, though.  I argued for decoupling of CVs - it made no sense to have "figureds you cannot buy directly" , and even ;less when we decoupled the other figureds.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

Ya, that's a pretty standard Drain / Aid composite approximation of Transfer. I mean I think it would have been useful to use Transfer as an example in the "Creating New Powers" section of the rulebook. There are two powers described in that section, Slipperiness and Venom. For each an example is given of describing the general intent of the proposed new power, then using existing powers and modifiers to approximate the effect and dial in an approximate pricing, and then simplify / recast the approximated effect into a unified power with the ugliness of the original build sublimated into a more elegant write up. I think that the usual Drain / Aid construct would have been a good candidate for that treatment as a welcome simplification for those who liked the convenience of Transfer ala 5e and also as a way to draw peoples attention to the existence of the Creating New Powers rules which despite having been present in 4e (though more abbreviated...the "Designing New Powers" text in the back of the book) and 5e (in virtually the same form), most people seem to be unaware of.

 

 

 

I'll go out on a limb and guess Steve decided that Transfer was either a sample "New Power" or a sidebar ability, and he chose the latter.   A couple of examples seems like enough to me, but I could see adding Transfer, or replacing one of the others with Transfer.

[Doc Democracy]

8 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

What do you mean by "Blast Standard"? ❔

 

It was the very next line, checking the utility of a power against the utility of an equivalent active point spend on Blast. ?

[Killer Shrike]

4 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Massey gives the example that Damage shield worsen from 4th (Damage Shield +1/2) to 5E (Damage Shield +1/2, Continuous +1) and I agree. However, because we are talking 6E, Damage Shield actually improved and became Damage Shield +1/4, Constant +1/2, No Range -1/2. Much better than 5E and actually cheaper than 4E (in Real Points but not in Active Points).

 

Nice. Good catch.

[Killer Shrike]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

It was the very next line, checking the utility of a power against the utility of an equivalent active point spend on Blast. ?

 

Oh, I think I get it; you're saying you use Blast as your benchmark to compare other powers against...something like "is this better, worse, or equivalent to a Blast of equal points?" Like a "gold standard" or a "bog standard".

[Doc Democracy]

Yup.  ?. Obviously there are some powers that are purely there for colour purposes, but my Blast Standard is a decent way for me to convey effectiveness to players.

[fdw3773]

16 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

As the reason why I started this post in the first place was to understand what's behind the vitriol of the trend towards anti-6e commentary I had noticed, when in my mind I think of "6e" as the actual rules themselves, absent other considerations, I think your post might offer a clue that some of the disgruntlement and harshitude in the mix vis-a-vis 6e is fueled or amplified by some people's unhappiness with the decline of the game in the marketplace in the 6e era rather than purely a dislike of the 6e rules themselves. So whether you care or not, I appreciate your post; it has given me a clue towards better understanding the prevailing attitudes.

 

 

I first started playing Champions/Hero System with 3rd Edition in the late 1980s and over the years collected earlier edition books followed by 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. In terms of 6th Edition products, I have Champions Complete, Hero Basic, and Champions. Am not sure if there is an overall reason why 6e is disliked, but here are two observations for your consideration that I gathered from my own experience as a customer and from talking with the dozen or so players/fans I meet in game conventions over the years when I run Champions:

 

1) In terms of style and graphic design, Champions 6th Edition products seem dated compared to other superhero game systems. Champions Complete's cover and interior b&w art was average and the soft-cover binding was okay, but previewing it next to other games like Mutants & Masterminds, Icons, or even Savage Worlds: Supers on the display rack, there was a distinct different in quality in terms of style. While some in this forum liked the textbook design for the 6th Edition rule book covers, the fans I spoke to in person didn't care for it (myself included). People still do judge a book by its cover to see if it's even worth previewing or passing on it outright.

 

2) The amount of rules made it difficult to introduce new players to Hero System. I had Hero Basic, but others had saw how many other rule books there were to get started for 6th Edition and were immediately turned off. A common occurrence was that the players had previously played Champions until <insert edition number here> for one reason or another but then stopped, most commonly due to the excessive rules being piled on in later editions.  The Champions Now kickstarter is drawing upon 3rd Edition or early rules for various reasons, drawing a mix of support and criticism of Hero Games senior staff being out-of-touch as to what their fans want as mentioned in other discussions. Even now, my go-to system of superhero games for brand-new players has been Icons and not Champions, and that's even with simplified versions of characters that I created (4th Edition versions). 

 

People who still play Champions/Hero System are going to choose their favorite edition and pull aspects from others accordingly to round out their campaign. It's unrealistic to convince them which is better than the other (or vice versa) in terms of game mechanics. Some like the simplicity of 3rd Edition and earlier (hence, Champions Now that's under development), some like the completeness of 4th Edition (BBB with George Perez cover art), others like the detailed comprehensiveness of 5th Edition (sourcebooks are extremely well done), and others like the new mechanics of 6th Edition (e.g. no "freebies" from Figured Characteristics).

[Hugh Neilson]

As I  mull over COM (and its sister stats that should have been added if it was retained, like Buff* and Height**), I'm struck by how hung up we get with the term "Characteristic".

 

It's been pointed out above that six characteristics (STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO, PRE) can be analogized to the 6 D&D characteristics.  The suggestion that grouping them differently might make the game feel less complex, and more accessible.

 

Why are certain things "characteristics"?  We put STUN, BOD, END and REC in this category, but D&D doesn't call hit points, or non-lethal damage, "characteristics".  Maybe we rename these "Health".

 

The suggestion to pull CVs out seems similar to AC and Base Attack Bonus.  "Attack/Defense"?

 

SPD is an odd one as few games have variable actions for characters, but it's just actions in combat.  Maybe it stands alone, like D&D Initiative.  Or include it with Initiative derived from DEX and Lightning Reflexes.

 

What about PD and ED?  Why are they not Defense Powers that all characters have a default starting amount of?  Why, because you don't get "base powers!  HERETIC!!  D&D has save bonuses, damage reduction and resistances to energies, many of which are only available to some characters.  Why can't PD and ED be similarly relegated to Powers?

 

Don't we?  What are running, swimming and leaping, then?  They are movement powers.  D&D has movement speed as well,  which are not characteristics.  If everything must be a characteristics, should these not be characteristics?

 

None of this would change the way the game runs at all.  It would simply change the presentation, chunking up both the character sheet and the rules.

 

Expanding on this, what if Powers were not presented en bloc, but by category?  Would it feel less intimidating if we had Movement Powers, Attack Powers, Defense Powers, etc. rather than one enormous alphabetical list?  Look at the D&D glossary and tell me that they have fewer, or less complex, game elements.

 

This is (sorry, KS) deviating from the question of mechanics, but we seem to have great difficulty differentiating "mechanics" from "presentation".

 

* Buff - looking physically fit.  Many people react better to buff people.  But while a pretty (high COM) girl can twist a nerdy scientist around her little finger, a fit (high Buff) girl is dismissed as a brainless jock.  Clearly Buff and COM should be separate characteristics.

 

** Studies have shown, or so I am told, that there is an unconscious bias to tall people.  Probably need a Slim stat as well, maybe a few dozen others.

 

[DreadDomain]

Straight off the bat, I believe 6E is the best edition of HERO mechanically. I would not say it is the best it could be, but it is better than the previous editions. Most of the problems I have with 6E are not mechanical but rather with presentation.

Presentation

Again, I will declare it from the start, I love the two big-blue 6E books. I find them beautiful and neat and as reference manuals, they are golden. When it comes to look at general rules though, Champions Complete or HERO Basic are much more convenient.  Behold hindsight 20/20, with better production value (and completeness for Basic) they could have been the equivalent of HERO Rulebook and Champions BBB for 4E. I would have seen them both on glossy paper, full color and using the layout template 6E1 and 6E2 use while the two big books could have been softcover and black and white (what they now are in POD I suppose).   

But my main presentation problems in 6E are on the character sheets. The wall of characteristics is horrible and with just a better layout could be easily avoided. Categorizing them like it was previously suggested in this thread would go a long way to make them look less intimidating. At the very least, grouping them slightly differently (example below but somewhat messed up) would definitely help.

CHARACTERISTICS

STR           40       17-         STR Dice 9d6, Lift 6.4tons

DEX          36      16-

CON          19       13-

INT            18       13-         Perception Roll 13-

EGO          15       12-

PRE           13       12-         PRE Attack 2½d6

 

OCV           10             OMCV      3

DCV           12              DMCV      3

SPD              5              Phases     3, 5, 8, 10, 12

 

PD              12              Total         12 PD/0 rPD

ED               9               Total         9 ED/0 rED

REC           10               END         40

STUN         40               BODY       12     

 

MOVEMENT

Running 12m (24m)         Swimming 4m (8m)

Leaping 30m (60m)         Swinging 40m (80m)

 

Another issue brought up previously is how some powers were deconstructed and need now to be built from other powers. While I have no problem with the approach, I would have preferred if they would have defined and used a simplified nomenclature on published character sheets (basically what they did with Talents). A few basic write-ups would have benefited from it (Force Field, Instant Change, Transfer, Super-Running (you know, the one not built with Running but with Flight or Teleport), etc…). In short, I would have liked if they looked for a way to declutter the character sheets and make them look more appealing, more fun (and yes, I would be totally happy not seeing Real Cost per line item and the advantages and limitations +/- values).

Legacy

Another aspect that clearly irks long time HERO fans is the loss of some legacy components. The two examples constantly referred to are Comeliness and Figured Characteristics. In both cases, I was initially against their departure but after the fact, my opinion is that the game is better without them.

Comeliness was not doing much mechanically and every attempt I have seen to give it a purpose were heroic efforts for sure but ultimately unconvincing. I much, much prefer Striking Appearance as a mechanic. That being said, I agree that adding Comeliness in a sidebar as a potential new Characteristic would have been a must. It is clearly important to some of us and we should respect that.

Figured Characteristics were a tougher nut to crack. The challenge is to balance a linear point cost progression per characteristics with what is fundamentally a breakpoint progression of abilities. Some benefits of characteristics increase every +1 but others only in +2, +3 or +5 increments. GURPS can balance its Attributes with its Secondary Characteristics by the simple fact that most benefits progress on a +1 for +1 basis. ST is equally divided in three components, Lifting, Striking and Hit Points, +1 in ST means +1 in all three components and the sum cost of the three components equals the total cost for ST. Trying to balance that in HERO was next to impossible and at best could have been better approximated than in previous editions (this is what I was hoping for while 6E was being developed). In the end, figured characteristics were not figured anymore and it suddenly became much easier to build any concept desired without worrying with point efficiency.

But something was lost. Call it guidance or verisimilitude but the fact remains that a deeply entrenched paradigm, the relation between Characteristics and Figured was erased. Again, a few solutions were possible. First, a sidebar re-introducing Figured Characteristics with better balanced costs could have been added. Second, and even easier, a sidebar could have introduced “suggested values” for Secondary Characteristics based on Characteristics (example below).

	Base	Cost	Suggested Value
OCV	3	5	DEX/3
DCV	3	5	DEX/3
OMCV	3	3	EGO/3
DMCV	3	3	EGO/3
PD	2	1	STR/5
ED	2	1	CON/5
SPD	2	10	1+DEX/10
REC	4	1	(STR+CON)/5
END	20	0.2	CONx2
BODY	10	1	10+STR/5
STUN	20	0.5	BODY+STR+CON)/2

 

From a cost perspective, nothing would change. You would still buy STR at 1 pts for +1 and no Secondary Characteristics would be automatically recalculated. If you wanted to bring your Secondary Characteristics in line with the suggested values, you would still need to buy them up. Suggested Values would simply give an indication of how the Characteristics could influence the Secondary Characteristics and the player would still have full power to buy them up their desired values based on their concept, may it be the suggested value or something else. Unless of course a campaign strictly enforces them.

I haven’t touched on mechanics at all in this post. Hopefully will have time to do so later.

 

[Killer Shrike]

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Straight off the bat, I believe 6E is the best edition of HERO mechanically. I would not say it is the best it could be, but it is better than the previous editions. Most of the problems I have with 6E are not mechanical but rather with presentation.

SNIP

I haven’t touched on mechanics at all in this post. Hopefully will have time to do so later.

 

I have nothing to add, nitpick, or debate on this, just wanted to say: great post, well articulated.

[Ninja-Bear]

Dreaddomain it’s funny you mention using the old figureds as suggestions because that is what I do now! ?

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Straight off the bat, I believe 6E is the best edition of HERO mechanically. I would not say it is the best it could be, but it is better than the previous editions. Most of the problems I have with 6E are not mechanical but rather with presentation.

Presentation

Again, I will declare it from the start, I love the two big-blue 6E books. I find them beautiful and neat and as reference manuals, they are golden. When it comes to look at general rules though, Champions Complete or HERO Basic are much more convenient.  Behold hindsight 20/20, with better production value (and completeness for Basic) they could have been the equivalent of HERO Rulebook and Champions BBB for 4E. I would have seen them both on glossy paper, full color and using the layout template 6E1 and 6E2 use while the two big books could have been softcover and black and white (what they now are in POD I suppose).   

But my main presentation problems in 6E are on the character sheets. The wall of characteristics is horrible and with just a better layout could be easily avoided. Categorizing them like it was previously suggested in this thread would go a long way to make them look less intimidating. At the very least, grouping them slightly differently (example below but somewhat messed up) would definitely help.

CHARACTERISTICS

STR           40       17-         STR Dice 9d6, Lift 6.4tons

DEX          36      16-

CON          19       13-

INT            18       13-         Perception Roll 13-

EGO          15       12-

PRE           13       12-         PRE Attack 2½d6

 

OCV           10             OMCV      3

DCV           12              DMCV      3

SPD              5              Phases     3, 5, 8, 10, 12

 

PD              12              Total         12 PD/0 rPD

ED               9               Total         9 ED/0 rED

REC           10               END         40

STUN         40               BODY       12     

 

MOVEMENT

Running 12m (24m)         Swimming 4m (8m)

Leaping 30m (60m)         Swinging 40m (80m)

 

I echo KS, first off - great post.

 

I would take a similar approach, probably even further.  Rearrange the character sheet, and revise nomenclature.

 

In D&D, the six characteristics go upper left where they are highlighted as these bonuses are frequently referenced. 

 

In Hero, I think SPD, CVs and Defenses are more often referenced.  So put the CV box (with SPD, and add Initiative, being DEX and Lightning Reflexes) in the upper right.  In the rules, these are a separate section (maybe a sub-type of characteristics, maybe a separate name). 

 

Defenses will be referenced a lot, so let's have an upper center box for "Defensive Powers" - PD, ED, rPD, rED, Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Power Defense, and a write-in line or two for unusual defensive powers like Damage Reduction, Negation, etc.  Maybe also some space for "hardened", "impenetrable", etc.

 

Now, let's add a section for Attacks - here, you can list your common maneuvers and attack powers, typical OCV/DCV, Skill Levels and Damage, END cost and any special notes (e.g. "concentration - DCV halved", or "AP").

 

Another box for Movement (maybe including all forms, maybe only Running, Swimming, Leaping and blank spaces for non-standard movement).

 

Of course, we need characteristics on this sheet as well. 

 

A space for senses and PER rolls would be good.  Some space for Skills would also be good, but not the D&D model of "show every skill".  Maybe break these up by type as well, starting with the standard Everyman skills printed, and you can write in your other skills.

 

That, plus character bio information (name, height, weight, etc.) seems like enough to play the character.  Skills and senses could spill over to the back of the sheet, along with "miscellaneous" powers and abilities.

 

Your power writeups, CP costs, etc. don't need to be on the character sheet.  A separate "character construction worksheet" can be used for that.  We don't need it in play.

 

11 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Another issue brought up previously is how some powers were deconstructed and need now to be built from other powers. While I have no problem with the approach, I would have preferred if they would have defined and used a simplified nomenclature on published character sheets (basically what they did with Talents). A few basic write-ups would have benefited from it (Force Field, Instant Change, Transfer, Super-Running (you know, the one not built with Running but with Flight or Teleport), etc…). In short, I would have liked if they looked for a way to declutter the character sheets and make them look more appealing, more fun (and yes, I would be totally happy not seeing Real Cost per line item and the advantages and limitations +/- values).

 

I think these make good sample powers. I'd hesitate to make them standard on "official" character write-ups as some groups will allow, modify or disallow, specific constructs (e.g. Combat Luck).  Suggesting this approach for common writeups in your specific game makes perfect sense to me, though, and breaking the character sheet down to an "in play" and "construction" sheet makes a lot of sense to me, as noted above.  These sheets could also be customized for specific genres or games - include one for each main genre covered in the Core Rules, include genre and sub-genre sheets in genre books, and include a Turakian Age or Champions Universe sheet in these setting books.

 

11 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Legacy

Another aspect that clearly irks long time HERO fans is the loss of some legacy components. The two examples constantly referred to are Comeliness and Figured Characteristics. In both cases, I was initially against their departure but after the fact, my opinion is that the game is better without them.

Comeliness was not doing much mechanically and every attempt I have seen to give it a purpose were heroic efforts for sure but ultimately unconvincing. I much, much prefer Striking Appearance as a mechanic. That being said, I agree that adding Comeliness in a sidebar as a potential new Characteristic would have been a must. It is clearly important to some of us and we should respect that.

Figured Characteristics were a tougher nut to crack. The challenge is to balance a linear point cost progression per characteristics with what is fundamentally a breakpoint progression of abilities. Some benefits of characteristics increase every +1 but others only in +2, +3 or +5 increments. GURPS can balance its Attributes with its Secondary Characteristics by the simple fact that most benefits progress on a +1 for +1 basis. ST is equally divided in three components, Lifting, Striking and Hit Points, +1 in ST means +1 in all three components and the sum cost of the three components equals the total cost for ST. Trying to balance that in HERO was next to impossible and at best could have been better approximated than in previous editions (this is what I was hoping for while 6E was being developed). In the end, figured characteristics were not figured anymore and it suddenly became much easier to build any concept desired without worrying with point efficiency.

But something was lost. Call it guidance or verisimilitude but the fact remains that a deeply entrenched paradigm, the relation between Characteristics and Figured was erased. Again, a few solutions were possible. First, a sidebar re-introducing Figured Characteristics with better balanced costs could have been added. Second, and even easier, a sidebar could have introduced “suggested values” for Secondary Characteristics based on Characteristics (example below).

	Base	Cost	Suggested Value
OCV	3	5	DEX/3
DCV	3	5	DEX/3
OMCV	3	3	EGO/3
DMCV	3	3	EGO/3
PD	2	1	STR/5
ED	2	1	CON/5
SPD	2	10	1+DEX/10
REC	4	1	(STR+CON)/5
END	20	0.2	CONx2
BODY	10	1	10+STR/5
STUN	20	0.5	BODY+STR+CON)/2

 

From a cost perspective, nothing would change. You would still buy STR at 1 pts for +1 and no Secondary Characteristics would be automatically recalculated. If you wanted to bring your Secondary Characteristics in line with the suggested values, you would still need to buy them up. Suggested Values would simply give an indication of how the Characteristics could influence the Secondary Characteristics and the player would still have full power to buy them up their desired values based on their concept, may it be the suggested value or something else. Unless of course a campaign strictly enforces them.

 

This is a tough one.  I share your experience that I favoured retention of both, but was persuaded by the reasoning behind their removal.

 

I think the game has to move on.  Changes have been made over the editions, and I would not want a sidebar on (for example) how to keep Damage Resistance as a fixed cost and Armor at 3 DEF for 5 points, retaining Force Field as +1 rDEF that costs END for 1 point.  Nor would I want an optional rules for maneuvers (basic and martial) that multiply damage rather than adding DCs, or a Flight NCM that works differently than other NCMs (exponential rather than doublings).

 

Why not suggest an APPearance characteristic?  It's base 10, costs 1/2 point and every 5 points gives you +5 PRE for all purposes where your appearance would matter.  Or we could have given every character 2 levels of Striking Appearance  by default.  It feels like we really get hung up on whether an ability is a Characteristic, a Perk or a Power.

 

The 6e one that grates on me was removal of the HKA/STR adder doubling rule, just to pop it back in as a sidebar.  Make a rule.  Mind you, I find STR adding to HKA an orphan mechanic that breaks "you get what you pay for" - I would go with "Killing Attack" 1d6/15 points, ranged by default.  You want no range?  Limit it.  You want a bigger KA because you are so strong?  Buy a bigger KA - and let's have a "locks out STR" mechanic for that.  Default, 90 STR Grond can pick up a 1/2d6 Knife and make a Combined Attack to both punch (18d6) and stab (6 1/2d6 KA absent the doubling cap, 1d6+1 with it).  Or maybe, since he rarely/never uses a KA, he should be allowed a limitation that his STR does not add to HKAs. 

 

Figureds are a tougher one.  I could see a sidebar for repricing to retain them, but now we have some Hero games building one way, and others another way.  How does that help the perception "Hero bad - too hard to understand"?  With the pricing fixed, Figureds no longer do anything.

 

"Suggested values" would, to me, suggest that these are probably good enough in the game.  Is that the case for OCV/DCV?  At best, we get back to "any competent fighter needs to be an Olympic gymnast".  The player bringing in his 15 STR, 23 CON martial artist is in for a rude awakening when he leaves his PD and ED at the book-suggested levels.  I never saw anyone fail to increase SPD either. Not sure why we added a BOD suggestion - or why it does not consider how healthy one is (CON).  It's also making STUN more confusing, since it varies with STR and BOD, and BOD varies with STR.

 

I think it would make more sense to expand the guidance by power level - we'd expect a Standard Super to have STR, CON, DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, CV's, Defenses, Stun, END, REC, etc. in these ranges.  That may also avoid the shock to a player who designed a nondescript, unassuming character with a 10 PRE, then finds he never gets an action due to PRE attacks.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh to your concern about CV and suggested values, I would like to point out that especially dealing with CVs, the guide of what should be bought defaults to campaign limits and guidelines.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh to your concern about CV and suggested values, I would like to point out that especially dealing with CVs, the guide of what should be bought defaults to campaign limits and guidelines.

 

So how does that manifest?  In a Heroic game, where we expect CVs of 3 - 7 (guideline table, which seems very wide to me), are we mandating DEX 8 - 20 as well, since your CV should be 1/3 of your DEX?  No one should be better at DCV than OCV or vice versa? 

 

If we have a guideline for campaign standard CV (or other abilities, like PD and ED), why do we need a further guideline tying these to specific characteristics?

 

Does that mean we challenge a strong-willed character (18 Ego) for failure to spend 18 points ([pretty significant - 10% of a 175 point character's points) to  boost mOCV and mDCV he will rarely or never use?

 

Maybe it seems more "off" to me because I  buy into decoupling to begin with, though.

[Doc Democracy]

Ultimately I try not to impose too many limits on the characters given to me for a new campaign.  I try to make sure that no one has bumped up to all of the suggested ceilings on CV, defences, SPD etc and then look across the group as a whole.

 

i am currently at that point in my forthcoming Golden Age game where I have one pretty much complete character submitted and a bunch of partials.  I think the character I have is too effective, he will outshine all the others in most circumstances.  That is not a good game starting point.  I am not going to try trimming down the one I have until I see the others completed.  If I can identify one area for each character to shine and at least one area where they will be a passenger then I have the makings of a group.  If I cannot then I will begin to make change suggestions until I have what I want.

 

as such the beginning levels of everything will be up in the air until after I have the heroes, I will then tailor my villains to that opposition...

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So how does that manifest?  In a Heroic game, where we expect CVs of 3 - 7 (guideline table, which seems very wide to me), are we mandating DEX 8 - 20 as well, since your CV should be 1/3 of your DEX?  No one should be better at DCV than OCV or vice versa? 

 

If we have a guideline for campaign standard CV (or other abilities, like PD and ED), why do we need a further guideline tying these to specific characteristics?

 

Does that mean we challenge a strong-willed character (18 Ego) for failure to spend 18 points ([pretty significant - 10% of a 175 point character's points) to  boost mOCV and mDCV he will rarely or never use?

 

Maybe it seems more "off" to me because I  buy into decoupling to begin with, though.

Simple Hugh, as you noted, those are guidelines. I’ve been writing up characters for my games. I set the CV at 6 for Heroes. Why ? Cause the typical normals have Elite at CV 5 and even if it’s a “normal”, I slant the CV to characters favor. Now I set the range of 6-8 with CSLs Max 10. I haven’t written up any pure mentalists. As of now I usually put OMCV at 3 but usually buy DMCV to 4+. Why? Cause I don’t use pure mentalists so I don’t see much use as yet. 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m afraid Hugh that perhaps I didn’t answered your question as to why we should have further guidelines if we already have benchmarks. The answer is I’m using the book benchmarks as guidelines to develop my own set for my own game which having decoupled is very useful for. 

 

(Btw I’m working on a Speedster who has 35 Dex and only 8 CV.)

[Duke Bushido]

Edited, because a PM seemed less disruptive to the thread.

 

 

 

Duke 

[Ninja-Bear]

Also I want to point out that with my build, I use Notable as the standard benchmark for trained agents. I have I believe a 5 OCV (with added skill levels)  and 3 DCV.  

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Simple Hugh, as you noted, those are guidelines. I’ve been writing up characters for my games. I set the CV at 6 for Heroes. Why ? Cause the typical normals have Elite at CV 5 and even if it’s a “normal”, I slant the CV to characters favor. Now I set the range of 6-8 with CSLs Max 10. I haven’t written up any pure mentalists. As of now I usually put OMCV at 3 but usually buy DMCV to 4+. Why? Cause I don’t use pure mentalists so I don’t see much use as yet. 

 

 

The benchmarks make sense to me.  The "CV based on DEX and EGO" do not.

 

A Super with 6 - 8 CV, 11 DEX, Ego 20, mOCV 3, dMCV 5 also makes sense to me.  He's campaign average for CVs, not unusually agile (just a touch above normal human), strong-willed with no experience in mental combat.

 

But he's completely off the "CV = 1/3 of DEX and mCV = 1/3 of EGO" guideline.  If I built to that, and built to concept, he has a 4 OCV and DCV (so he is ineffective in combat), and spends 12 points on mOCV he will never use.  The mDCV may be useful at some point, but overall the character will not be very useful in the game, primarily because I stuck with my concept of normal human DEX and a strong will, but applied the "1/3" guideline.

 

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m afraid Hugh that perhaps I didn’t answered your question as to why we should have further guidelines if we already have benchmarks. The answer is I’m using the book benchmarks as guidelines to develop my own set for my own game which having decoupled is very useful for. 

 

(Btw I’m working on a Speedster who has 35 Dex and only 8 CV.)

 

Sounds like that guideline is not helping you much either.  I think one of the opportunities lost in 6e was pricing reverse compatability of writeups over  highlighting the decoupling.  There was no reason for a standard Super to have DEX 23 - 26 just because he had CV 8 - 9.

[Killer Shrike]

On 1/30/2019 at 9:16 AM, massey said:

Long story short, 6th edition is chasing the white whale.  Players have complained about small cost discrepancies with things like figured characteristics.  "Strength is too efficient!"  Yeah... kind of. 

 

The cost discrepancies were not "small"; in a supers campaign (or other high-points campaign) it was less noticeable due to the noise of more points across the board, but at a heroic level where the free points gained from the nonsensical point recursions of figureds often added up to a non-negligible percentage of starting character points it was particularly problematic.

 

But as stated before, I'm pending figureds discussion to one combined post later.

 

Quote

 

Buying your strength up is efficient, except unless you're a brick you're still paying for dice damage that you aren't going to use.  In a 12D6 game, buying a 30 strength isn't abusive, because a 6D6 punch isn't enough to get through anybody's defenses.

 

I'm going to try to tease this apart.

 

STR, as it is defined mechanically in HS, gets better the more you have of it in every way until you reach a point of diminishing returns at the extreme high end where any conceivable task is below the top end of capability. Pre-6e thanks to the free points from recursion actually granting you more points in figureds than you spent on STR, it was still efficient to buy STR well past the point you benefited much from its high end just to inflate figureds cheaply. The only thing that prevented many players from buying up their STR on a non-NCM character to extreme levels was general damage caps imposed by most GMs rather than any limit on the usefulness of STR itself. So the idea that buying up STR is efficient, except for "bricks" (i.e. characters with notably high strength), just doesn't scan. 

 

It may not have been the intent, but then the example given presumably to support this statement, postulates a 30 STR as "not abusive" in a 12D6 capped campaign because 6D6 is unlikely to be competitive vs average defenses. But, in a 12D6 campaign, a 30 STR character would not be considered a brick, at least not in my experience. In a 12D6 campaign, a character would need at least 50 STR to be considered a brick, and would almost certainly have a bog standard 60 STR, bought right up to the cap, because players are like that (campaign maximums have a tendency to turn into defacto "minimum acceptable value" in the minds of many players). So, either it was an unintended attachment of one sentence to a preceding sentence with neither meant to support the other, or it is a misleading argument.

 

Quote

Buying up primary characteristics to boost figureds tends to result in a small point savings, relative to the overall cost of the character.  A 350 point hero with high primaries may end up saving 20 to 30 points versus a character with lower primaries who bought up his figured characteristics.  This is a real discrepancy, but it's less than 10% of the character's cost. 

 

You are arguing from the assumption that 350 points is the benchmark for starting characters. I'm assuming / inferring that you are coming from a primarily superhero perspective. But the Hero System is not a dedicated superhero game engine. It is multi-genre and multi-power level. At lower point levels the math changes considerably. 

 

Quote

6th edition separated primaries from figureds, but then they were faced with the idea that maybe figureds were overcosted to begin with.  So Stun and End became a lot cheaper.  But then the cost structure of Endurance Reserve was all screwed up, because you could just buy regular End for really cheap.  The limitation Increased Endurance became an easy way to save points, because the price on that didn't change, but End itself is way cheaper.  Which means that the value of the Charges limitation is all screwed up now. 

 

(In 6e...) Recovery became 1/2 cost, Endurance became less than 1/2 cost.  That means I can pump both those stats up higher than a 5th ed character, and take x2 End cost on all my powers for a -1/2 (or x3 for a -1) for significant savings.  You went from somebody saving 20 to 30 points (between 5-8% of total character cost)  by buying up their primaries to saving between a third and half on their primary power set. 

 

I agree that there was a ripple effect of recosting END. Interestingly enough, we house ruled Endurance Reserves in 6e to make them more viable as they do seem to be subpar in 6e; Panpiper first brought it to my attention early on and we worked out some tweaks that brought its utility up without recosting it. A write up of it is here for the interested: http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_HouseRules.aspx#EnduranceReserve6e

 

However, I suspect we have a different way of looking at things in general. To my eye, the increased ease of getting enough END to fuel a character's abilities means that fewer characters should feel the need to want to take Reduced Endurance (a pretty commonly used modifier in the supers campaigns I participated in over the years) or an Endurance Reserve, or seek to build powers using Charges for purely meta reasons where perhaps the concept doesn't quite match up with the mechanics used to model it.

 

As far as characters buying up cheap END and then applying Increased Endurance to the their powers...the long standing precept that limitations that don't limit characters are not valid applies here. A GM can and should veto players trying to milk points from limitations that don't really limit their characters; this is HS GM 101 level stuff.

 

Quote

You can't change one fundamental aspect of the system without affecting the others. 

 

This isn't entirely precise. Changes to non-orthogonal aspects of a system do have side effects (sometimes predictable, sometimes surprising) on other aspects of a system. However, not all aspects of a system are non-orthogonal to each other, and in a well factored (but likely very limited) system it is possible to have high orthogonality where nearly all components are self contained. 

 

It would be more accurate to say something like "END is the fundamental resource used by the game to limit a given character's frequency of use of their various abilities, rather than using an X / per day or strict action economy or cool-off model such as is done in some other games. Options that allow characters to limit the frequency of use on an ability in a different way (or remove the END based limit altogether) are priced comparatively to the standard cost of END. Changing the standard cost of END or its supporting elements such as REC would therefore call into question the pricing of all END related and END equivalent options".

 

Progressing down that path, one possible perception is that change is bad and wrong, and someone changing something "fundamental" can't possibly conceive of the possible repercussions or take action to prevent them and therefore should not change anything. The old saws "if it ain't broke don't fix it", "it works well enough, don't #@(% with it", and "that's how we've always done it" are often trotted out at some point in discussion about such changes...and sometimes they are even appropriate and pragmatic depending on the risk vs reward of tinkering. 

 

However, it is also possible to adjust multiple non-orthogonal (i.e. interrelated) parts of a system as part of an overall re-balancing or refactoring to keep them in tune with one another. If you take your car or other mechanical device to a good mechanic for instance, they might just replace one part and call it done, but they also might run some diagnostics and adjust a few things to tune the machine as a whole. Game mechanics are no different; sometimes a simple repair is all that is needed or warranted, other times a more holistic approach is called for.

 

Now, I did not play 6e as extensively as I did 4e and 5e, but in the time I spent with 6e I did not notice an issue with the frequency of use options other than by the book END Reserve not being viable. It all trundled along nicely, and we had a mix of characters using END and Charges for various abilities.Your mileage may vary. 

 

Put simply I did not encounter the issues you suggest are present in this area; but I'm willing to hear more about your 6e experiences or horror stories, or just a point break down establishing that the costs of Charges, etc are out of whack in 6e due to changes to END costing.

 

Quote

6th edition is rife with problems like that.

 

Well, ok, that has not been my experience, but I invite you to list those problems out and engage in discussion about them. 

[Killer Shrike]

On 1/30/2019 at 10:31 AM, Duke Bushido said:

Dude, take it from me:  in a world where comeliness matters (like the one we live in), being ugly is one hell of a hindrance. 

 

When the doctor first told us it was going to be twin girls) couldn't sleep for two nights.   I cried all night, begging God on my soul that they not look like me. 

 

You don't have to be "striking," just a little prettier, to make a world of difference.  Same goes with ugly. You don't have to have much of it- doesn't even have to be memorable or scary-- for things to be far more unpleasant than they are for the bulk of the people you see every day. 

 

A lot of things matter in the real world; we do not necessarily need a characteristic to quantify each and every one of them in a game system. For instance, beyond just being attractive, being of a certain gender or ethnicity is also a big facilitator or hindrance toward opportunity and how one is treated, depending upon the society you happen to be born into or live among. Do we need one or more characteristics to measure that sort of subjective "quality"? Obviously, I think "no".

 

In the case of the Hero System, there are Perks, Talents, and Complications which happen to handle things like that quite well for GM's and players who want to quantify intangibles or represent remarkable traits or define hindrances that interfere with a character's life. 

[Killer Shrike]

 

Quote

snip selling back COM

 

But you can't balance the game within single digit points.  If you try, you're pretending the game has a degree of accuracy that it doesn't have.  

 

So, the premise here would be that COM was removed in an attempt at game balance, and by extension an attempt to balance the game over such trivialities is somehow proof of ill-advised attempts at game balance in general. 

 

But COM was not removed for balance reasons. COM was neither balanced nor unbalanced. It was simply vestigial, like an appendix in human anatomy. COM was removed because it was a game mechanic that didn't do anything tangible. 

 

Some might then argue "well, keep it and make it do something then", but the way in which COM might actually do something in the game as it is actually used employs other mechanics by long practice. An alternative ability was presented, costed similarly to COM, that actually does do something in both the well developed Interaction Skill resolution mechanics as well as the more old-school "PRE Attack" mechanics, but I gather that some people take umbrage at the idea that a different mechanic might accomplish the effect they are looking for. I find this difficult to reconcile with the fact that a fundamental precept of the Hero System is a separation of mechanics and sfx / reasoning from effect, and presumably people who play it are used to thinking in this way...but there it is.

 

Also, the statement itself, "you can't balance the game within single digit points" is fallacious in a larger context. The Hero System claims to balance itself in increments of 5 points, but due to rounding rules I would contend that it actually balances itself in increments of 3 points. So, you should be able to balance the game within single digit points (3 or 5 depending on your stance), and if you can't then the game's founding premise is busted and all the math necessary to keep track of Active Points and Real Cost etc is just a lot of useless overhead.