Hugh Neilson

Agree on the STR front - does your Energy Projector need a 13 or 18 STR, or did he need +1 or 2 PD, +1 or 2 REC and some STUN? He got 10 points back in Figured for spending 8 points on STR. For DEX, I never found SPD was the issue. Really, DEX cost 2 points and you spent an extra point to reduce the cost of SPD you would buy anyway. But 6 points for +1 OCV and DCV - clearly EVERY character needed DEX, as you noted further down. Even ignoring initiative and DEX rolls, the OCV and DCV is huge. The 6e writeups haven't reflected that reality - the average Super no longer needs a 23 ("legendary") DEX, but most of the 6e writeups just transferred the 5e stats over. While the Figured characteristics were derived from STR and CON, the reality was that we figured out STR and CON largely based on our desired Figured characteristics, although there is a "CON tax", especially in Supers, if you don't want to lose most actions to being STUNNED.

I saw greater variation, although that 18/18 was pretty common for the martial characters. 3 SPD was not uncommon, but 4 was pretty common as well. I actually toyed with (never ran) a 30 DEX for 90 points (10 OCV and DCV and 4 SPD paid for; 60 points for other stats, weapon proficiencies and maybe a few skills. We didn't play a ton of FH, and when we did we tended to look for things we could not do in D&D. To be fair, D&D put starting ages for wizards in the low to mid-20s, not "aged". Study was crucial - many literary characters are more like sorcerers (spontaneous casters) than wizards in d20 parlance. I think it was even broader for some stats. DEX and CON had a bonus at 15 IIRC. I recall looking to re-edition 2e characters based on their bonuses rather than their stats (+1 to hit and damage, so 17 STR in 2e, becomes a 12 STR in 3e). No question that the cost break on Figured (both what you got and their high prices) motivated characteristic inflation. But so did the sample characters. If the most sluggish example Super didn't have 18 DEX and 4 SPD, we might not have felt so obliged to either. Although having half the SPD chart unused just felt like we should be filling it out more...

That really brings the issue home - I'm in Edmonton, and of course both Enterprise and Yellowknife have been prominent in local news, but it's not as real until you communicate with someone directly affected. Best wishes for a quick return, and an efficient rebuild.

I would be more inclined to agree if the result of the figured characteristics were more in line with the amounts needed for the characters. I never saw a Super who did not need more defenses in some form. Bricks (with high CON) did not have a lesser need for END (and, by extension, REC) than lower-con Mentalists and Energy Projectors. Characters with lower physical stats still needed STUN (and again REC) to remain viable in combat. I never saw a Super just go with their figured SPD, or even just buy it up to the next full point. A player relying on Figured to build a viable Supers character would typically be quite disappointed. In fact, I would suggest the Figured were actually more viable for heroic characters. In the shift to 6e, my inclination was to retain the familiarity of figured characteristics, but reprice the primary characteristics to incorporate the base figureds they would provide. That would still be a reasonable option in my view. However, I would also eliminate the "you can only sell back one" rule (which is not needed if pricing is appropriate) and abandon the limitation "no figured" - just sell them back. And if the primary characteristic has a limitation, the Figured sellback gets the same limitation if those are from the limited Primary. But that would be much more complicated than just buying each characteristic up separately, so I also see the merit in the decision that, if the pricing is appropriate, we don't need two different ways to buy the exact same things. Of course, that line of reasoning also supports Doc's more extreme elimination of all characteristics in favour of buying only the underlying mechanical effects. It's not a binary choice, but a continuum. If I look to the d20 system, the same issues arise. There are breakpoints (why have an odd number?), and there are other ways to buy many of the mechanics (skill points; feats that provide one element of a characteristic, such as more skill points, save bonuses or more hit points). They're neither as frequent nor as obvious, as Hero provides much greater transparency in the character construction rules, but the same issues are in there. sounds like an ability that the character logically should purchase, under Hero's get what you pay for and pay for what you get philosophy. Again, I believe that is embedded into other games less visibly. If my D&D Wizard should "realistically" be wearing heavy armor, I have to dedicate some character resources to that heavier armor, so I get less character resources towards other aspects, like my spellcasting. Or we see a new class, or a teak of an existing class, that adds some abilities and takes others away. In Hero, that character spent points on using heavy armor, and paid for it by spending less points on spellcasting.

Chris' comment on Robot Warriors playing the same in 2021 under 6e as it did in 1988 reflects the often-stated reality that the core of the game has not changed over all the editions. Character creation is where the complexity exists, and where the changes have taken place. By contrast, DND 1-2E, 3E, 4E and 5E are different at a core mechanical/task resolution/gameplay level. So when we ask whether the game is "better" with or without figured, one answer is that the GAME is unchanged - it plays exactly the same. We have very few discussions on changing the gameplay. Maybe the occasional discussion of the SPD chart or using d20 instead of 3d6. Most of the discussion is on character creation, or on the extent to which interaction of characrer creation elements should be covered by the rules or figured out by the gaming group on their own.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e! Specifically, see v1, p 11: and Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW! BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

The HKA with Range is just another points illustration. If I have a 15 STR, a 3d6 HKA with Range will set me back 67 points. A 4d6 RKA will only cost 60 points. If I buy another 15 STR and spend 45 on a 2d6 HKA with Range, I still get 4d6 KA, but I also get another 15 STR. Spreading was explained in a designer interview with Different Worlds as "something we lost for 1e when Magneto attacked our floppy discs", and was intended to compensate for Bricks getting 10 base STR, Grabs, Throws, Lift, Leaping, Figureds, etc. Be it known that I was duly cautioned and chose, fully informed and of my own volition, to proceed. I hereby absolve @Duke Bushido from any and all liability in respect of the consequences of my choice to participate in this potentially hazardous activity An analysis which has been done before (which could describe the entire discussion of HKAs, of course). It is the basis for my consistent question, which you address further down, why I can't use the same +1/2 advantage to add STR to other attacks, or even to add other stats to attacks. In 4e, we received the "Hand Attack" power - for 3 CB, you got +1d6 to HTH damage. So we got 60 point Multipowers including a +20d6 HA slot ("but it's legal and costs the same as my other 60 point slots"). Then we got 5e, and HA became a 5 AP ability with a limitation, returning us to +1 DC = +5 AP. With 6e, a lot of attack powers got range added by default. By extension, I would see a solid case for changing RKA and HKA to "Killing Attack: 1d6 per 15 points, ranged". "But my claws have no range!!" So slap "no range" on the KA, like you would on pretty much every other attack power that you want to be limited to HTH. We'll leave out options for simulating how your high STR makes your claws more effective. It's a special effect for having more KA, no range dice. As noted above, it was 3 points HA in 4th. It became 5 points and a -1/2 limitation in 5th. I think it's -1/4 in 6th, which I find odd when I can buy +1 MA DC for 4 points and enhance far more maneuvers at no END cost. But my preference would be -1/4 STR that doesn't lift (so it would increase Grabs, for example) and -1/2 to only do normal damage. But for some reason, HA was based on Blast (that's not stated in 6e - it's noted as derived from STR). Shouldn't Blast, No Range, STR Adds cost 5 points per d6? That "+1/2 for STR adds" isn't consistently applied, is it? I'd charge fair value for my opinions, but I'm not willing to write all those cheques, so I set a minimum of zero. Most games have been refined over the years, if they continued at all. I call STR adds to damage an orphan mechanic because it is applied in only a single, specific circumstance. Having HKA and RKA, and HKA's augmented by STR, are certainly a holdover. Like many things in Hero, what we call it isn't really all that important. I lost your comment on Damage Resistance somehow, but that's another example of evolving to a consistent model. Back in 1e, we had Armor (3 resistant defence for 5 points), Damage Resistance (full defenses against KA stun and half against KA BOD for 15 points, or pay 30 and get full defenses against BOD as well) and Force Field (1 rDEF per 1 point, but it costs END). Over the years, that became a consistent +1 point to make 2 Defenses resistant. I interpret the historic reluctance to extend the concept to a basic grasp that it;s not really that great a concept. You want extra Entangle, or Mind Control, or Sight Flash (eye poke) or Hearing Fash Explosion (thundrous handclap) because you have a high STR, buy more of the attack and limit it with something like "unified power - STR" or "locks out STR" or whatever. Oh, but not if it's a KA with no range! That's somehow completely different!!! I remain convinced that RPG rules evolved to resolve sandbox play as 4 year olds. "Bang - I shot you; fall down" "No, you missed" All those combat rules exist to referee those inner 4 year olds. Emphasis of key point (to me) added. Preach it!

The war certainly rages on. I think it was a huge shocker some years back when Pathfinder briefly outsold D&D. Wars require financing and troops.

In my 4th year Commerce computer science course, our prof introduced us to the "next wave" of computing - apps that program. It was Lotus 1-2-3, and the use of macros. This is today's "make me feel old" thread, I guess

OK. The I can spend 60 points to have a 70 STR and 15 points to have a 1d6 HKA. That's 75 points spent. I can punch for 14d6, Grab with 70 STR, lift with 70 STR and do either 2d6 HKA (if we limit the addition) or 5 1/2d6 HKA (if we do not). That's option 1. Or I can buy +10 STR (10 points) and a 55 point Multipower pool (55 points), a fixed slot of +55 STR (5 points) and a fixed slot of 3 1/2d6 HKA (5 points). Same 75 points spent. Now I can punch for 15d6, Grab with 75 STR, lift with 75 STR and do a 5d6 HKA. That's option 2. My STR is higher under both options. If we don't limit STR adds, I've lost 1/2d6 of KA damage. If we do, I've gained 3d6 of KA damage. How balanced does that seem? Or I could have just bought +75 STR and had an 85 STR with no KA. Oh wait - what limitation will you give my STR for "does not enhance the HKA that I did not buy, but maybe I might buy later"? Let's look at another equal price option, with the halving rule in place. I can buy a 15 STR (5 points) and a 3d6 KA (45 points) for a total spend of 60 points. I can do 3 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA. I can buy 30 STR (20 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points) for a total spend of 60 points. I can do 6 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA. That feels like getting +15 STR for free from where I sit. IOW, getting something for nothing. I can buy 45 STR (35 points) and a 1d6 HKA (15 points) for a total spend of 60 points. I can do 9 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 2d6 HKA. So it was balanced to get +15 STR for free, but it's not balanced to get more than +15 STR for free? That makes pretty much no sense to me. Which of the above three options (HKA bigger than STR could augment; HKA at the exact limit STR could augment; HKA smaller than STR could augment) did you see most often? I known what I saw - and it made it clear that no one considered the rules change when Enemies was updated to 2e. From the evolution of the game, I will disagree. In 1e, the STR add was unlimited. This resulted in a lot of Bricks with 1d6 KAs. Different Worlds published an interview with the designers on the changes from 1e to 2e, and there was no indication that the HKA change had anything to do with wanting to de-emphasize KAs. The Enemies book was not really updated to reflect the change, with the most striking answer being the Monster - a KA machine in 1e, but they did not reduce his STR and boost his KA with the 2e change, so he ended up a Brick with a 2d6 HKA. The Deathstroke scenario noted that the characters with KAs would only use them against high-defense targets to get some STUN through. The stun lotto made KAs in supers play much more effective at KOing higher defense targets than at killing anyone. Yup. Common sense also suggests that someone who is immune to radiation does not take damage from a Blast with radiation SFX. Virtually all "but common sense says my character..." arguments are responded to with "common sense dictates that you should buy that ability for your character". Except "but I am strong so my claws should slice deeper". Well, at least we can agree on something. But, as @Duke Bushido is fond of pointing out, it's pointless to argue online about games you will never play with the people you argue with overall.

It would be easier if your goal is to develop your own content. But then, why not just develop all your own content from scratch, rather than acquire an obscure IP - no, the CU is not going to attract hundreds of thousands of subscribers from the ranks of Hero Gamers - that will only provide a starting point because it is not generating much, if any, new content. A multimedia giant regularly spins off new content, so all we need to do is adapt it to the game. D&D is a known brand name. They won the marketing war. Where would you expect Hero to get the investment capital to publicize their name to a remotely similar extent?

Doubling the cost of STR would also carry ripple effects. If +20 STR costs 40 points, what is an Offensive Strike that adds 4d6 HTH worth? Does pushing STR still get +1d6/5 points, or is it now +1d6/10 points? Do combat maneuvers only add 1d6/2 DC? Does that rebalance Offensive Strike to add 2d6 damage when a ranged MA would add 4d6 to a Blast? How do we price 4 MA DCs when the equivalent STR would cost 60 points at 0 END? I don't think STR is worth 2 points. STR provides HTH DCs and lifting. I think we need to assess the cost of those components, and assess mechanics that currently provide those effects in light of this pricing. MA damage classes are a great example. This indicates that a character buying MA DCs is not losing much, if anything, to the inability to apply MA DCs to non-Martial maneuvers. Additionally, they increase abilities that STR does not, such as NND combat maneuvers. They could be simulated with +5 STR, Martial attack DCs only, 0 END. DCs only is -1/4 IMO. That's a price of 6. Getting down to 4 sets "martial maneuvers only" at -1/2. That seems pretty high when MA maneuvers "work massively better anyway". It could be simulated with 2 levels of Martial Arts for 10 points or 16 points. Most MA users have plenty of maneuvers. Limiting those to Damage Only needs to be assessed. Losing both the OCV and DCV option is quite limiting. The third option is to price a floating DC in general. Things like WeaponMaster are now designed as limited skill levels. But skill levels were priced based on a Multipower. If that MP was +2 OCV, +2 DCV or +1 DC, 0 END, then it seems like +1 DC, 0 END costs 10 points. That means 3 should cost 30. Only MA has to be a -1 1/2 limitation for that math to work.

The key being that the buyer needs to see enough savings on in-house creative staff to cover the cost of the IP, plus a profit margin. For Marvel/DC, there is the added benefit of an existing fanbase. For CU, not so much. Many developers who work with licensed IP constrain about the constraints imposed on their product. Buying the IP and taking control solves that, but now you need those in-house creative staff to develop and build on it, so your savings are only one-time, and you lose some getting the in-house staff up to speed with the IP they did not create and were not previously involved with.

Sounds like "they are also markedly underpriced for their utility".

Water would be the most challenging issue. Our building has elevators and bathrooms in the center of the floor. If we divided the floor into 4 apartments and put the bathroom and kitchen facilities near the center, it might work. We have a small servery on each "all-workspace" floor with a sink, fridge, dishwasher and a couple of microwaves. There would be some wiring and plumbing work to do, for sure, but it would not take as much work as constructing a new 16-floor building. Apartment buildings don't have unlimited window options either. A lot of rebuilding happens when commercial tenants change - while converting for residential would take some work, I don't think it is wholly impractical. The result may not be ideal, but it would be a lot better than living in your car or on the street. I've seen an old church converted to residential condos and a hotel converted to student dorms. A hotel is not a lot different than an office building, but has much closer to residential configurations (with more water needed - smaller spaces than even most studio apartments and no kitchens) than most office buildings.

It was added in 2e (and the updated Enemies book had a ton of high STR characters with 1d6 KA (2d6 with STR) as a result. It highlights that the "STR adds to KA" rule is an orphan mechanic and provides something for nothing. Somehow, it's OK for Ironclad to get +2d6 HKA for free but not more than 2d6. But I could buy a 30 STR character with a Multipower with 3d6 HKA (5d6 with STR) and +45 STR for 54 points, much less expensive than buying a 70 STR (+40 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points).I can spend the extra 15 points on STR and end up with a 6d6 HKA and potential 90 STR, instead of a 70 STR and either a 4d6 HKA or a 6 1/2 d6 HKA. Either it is balanced to allow extra HKA for free with STR, or it is not. Capping the add does not make it balanced, it just creates a cost efficiency breakpoint.

The only reason would be any savings (time and $$) by using existing material rather than developing it internally. From the game developer's perspective, Hero's IP is not a great choice as the computer gamers want to see regular content updates, and Hero isn't generating new content nearly rapidly enough to be a reliable source, so all they save is up front "initial world" development. OTOH, Marvel and DC are not going to sell the IP rights in perpetuity like Hero did, so the developer is always at risk of the license not being renewed. That risk is also avoided by developing the IP in-house, of course. Overall, if there was a huge benefit to be had, Cryptic would either exploit the IP or sell their rights to someone who will. If they had a Marvel license, I have no doubt Marvel would be shopping the renewal rights around given how cryptic has faltered, but Marvel has a steady stream of new content (Movies, TV, comics) to market a game with their IP. Agreed that there is no real business case for the CU IP.

It's not trivial if you want extra Escape, Grab, etc. (not just +xd6) for a character lacking MA maneuvers. At best, No Lift is a -1/4 limitation on STR, so 4 points. That costs END, which highlights the discount price of MA DCs.

While I think it should be possible to buy the component parts separately, at a comparable total cost, I would not favour losing the characteristics in their entirety. If someone envisions a character whose lifting ability and HTH damage do not follow the progression of the STR chart in lockstep, why should that character not be possible to create? We already allow for INT rolls to be bought up separate from PER rolls, initiative separate from DEX rolls, PRE skills and PRE attacks. Most components of characteristics can be purchased in other ways. Why not extend that to all components, and make the pricing equitable?

Is it measurable? Two characters have STR 75 and 80. The player with 80 STR is told that his character is twice as strong. The lift backs that up. The damage is only 1d6 higher - an average roll of 56 versus 52.5. Twice as strong? If they face off in a feat of strength (tog-o-war? arm wrestle) it's probably resolved with opposed STR rolls (for which the doubly strong character gets only a +1 bonus) or "count the BOD" on 16d6 vs 15d6. Shouldn't the "twice as strong" character win virtually all the time? Cognitive disassociation. Most games have these issues to some extent so that results are not preordained. Certain;y d20 sees it when a +7 bonus rolls a 3 and fails, and a - bonus rolls a 20 and succeeds. Rolls resolved by 3d6 reduce that dissonance, but do not eliminate it.

To me, the better answer is to break down the component parts so that they can be purchased separately, but retain the characteristics as the sum of those component parts. So we have skill levels that cap out at 5 points for +1 to all DEX/INT/PRE based rolls. Lightning Reflexes (Initiative) caps out at +1 for all actions at a cost of 1 point. Perception costs 5 points for +1 to all Perception rolls. +1d6 PRE attacks costs 5 points. +5 DEX/INT/PRE costs 10 points (2 points per Char point) and gives you the related abilities. If you now want to remove characteristics, you have the component parts available, but they remain part of the game by default.

Her left hand is now the Troll hand.

I am confused by the statement that "Within the 9 Realms, Pool caps on Active Points have been eliminated and a spell or ability may exist within a framework as long as the Real Point cost of the spell fits within the reserve or Pool." This suggests that Billy is not required to pay CP for his AP limit. If I need a 3 to make the roll without extra time, and I have SPD 3, I can roll 15 times per minute. The odds of rolling a 3 is 1 in 216. The character should be able to attune in under 15 minutes on average. Why spend an hour for a +5 and need an 8- (25%) for his one roll in an hour?

I think part of the question was what happened to the points paid. Not so much an issue for Stormbringer, but if Arnie the Arch-Mage (PC invested 50 points into a magic item, is burgled at the inn and it is now held by Ronny Rogue, who sells it to Winnie Witch: - does Winnie have to pay 50 CP? Answer from above is no? - does Arnie get the 50 CP back, or tough luck? Harsh, but that's the risk you take with Innate - go earn another 50 xp? - from your comments, another character can contribute the CP (and, if not, why would wizards create magical swords or armour that they aren't likely to use anyway) - how does the rule apply to them? - why would I pay for a +1/2 advantage that makes it possible for me to lose the item? Limitations for powers that can be lost also begs certain abuses, such as a character spending a ton of points on Innate items, giving them out to other PCs and retiring so a new character comes in (or just dying and leaving all those CP behind to the other players). The "everything is innate" character who is vastly overpowered until the items get removed, at which time the player sets out to bring in a new character, is also an issue. Maybe items only become fully innate when their creator dies; the creator always maintains some level of control over who can use HER magicks.

It could be different for each character. If you choose to buy +8 DCs of HTH damage and 8 doublings of lifting (+40 STR at present), great. Maybe my character hits harder (+12 DCs HTH) but doesn't lift quite so effectively (6 doublings of lifting). Unified Power works for both. Oh look - we each get to build the character as we envision it, without one of us paying a penalty cost for having a concept that does not align with the current STR model. I can't speak for Doc's vision. As indicated above, I would start with all HTH-based effects costing 4 points per +1 DC (whether that's a -1/4 limitation on STR or a separate mechanic if we ditched STR as a characteristic), so Grab would work like it has always worked, using those DCs Just like Martial Grab works with base STR plus any bonus from the maneuver plus any MA DCs. Under my model, 5 points would buy +1 with all DEX or INT based rolls. You'd buy those bonuses, I expect, unless your skill set was tight enough for a 4-point bonus that only adds to a subset of such rolls - all at once. +3 to DEX and INT-based rolls - 30. Getting PER rolls and Initiative with that would cost more (it already does for DEX, but INT remains a bargain doing two things at once). No, it's not how skill levels work now. That's why you buy a super-smart, super-agile character instead of a well-trained character. Well-trained characters are mechanically inefficient under the present model. But they are identical mechanically. One driving force behind either Doc's initiative or mine is that the same mechanical results should carry the same CP cost regardless of the special effects. And "my character is super-agile so he has +3 to all DEX rolls" is exactly the same, mechanically, as "my character has obsessively trained for years so he has +3 to all DEX rolls". Under the current rules, one should have +15 DEX and the other should have +3 from skill levels. The current approach doesn't even allow the skill rolls due to "one at a time", and the cost would still be a penalty even if they were "all at once". Your model is a gain if you think "all of these disparate skills are driven by one single aspect of the character, but initiative is not". If you take a look at the DEX (or Agility) based skills, some are based on gross motor skills and some tie better to hand-eye coordination and fine manipulation. Initiative might best lay with the former, but then a gunslinger might find it closer to the latter. Some might consider it to be its own, third ability. I would say, rather, that it is motivated by the notion that "characteristics", "skills" and "powers" are all just labels - special effects - for various mechanics. The game already acknowledges this with, for example, its reference to characteristics and skills as powers, superskills - powers reflecting a superior ability with a skill. Defenses are another great example that we buy with characteristics, characteristics as powers (resistant advantage), powers directly or even a form of skills ("requires an acrobatics roll"). If we start with the premise that Hero presents a series of mechanics - the building blocks of a character - then characteristics, skills and powers become means of constructing a specific special effect using those mechanics.