Hugh Neilson

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 

 

But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 

 

We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 

 

If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 

 

It's nice to keep some concrete representation.

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?

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

There's a cognitive dissociation that's a Bad Thing...particularly with STR, which is a very concrete, measurable, comparable value.

 

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.

1 hour ago, L. Marcus said:

... What was that about the left hand ... ?

Her left hand is now the Troll hand.

18 hours ago, GoldenAge said:

The mere fact that its possible to turn a regular spell into a massive ritualistic spell is a major plus of the HERO System!!!

Billy the Acolyte could have a normal costing VPP (say 25 Pool/80 Control Cost)... But Billy knows that the RAY OF RAY spell is only limited by the spiritual energy used to cast the spell. Allowing him to break the Control Cost AP cap rule will leave open the option for an amazing cinematic event like the one above!

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.

18 hours ago, GoldenAge said:

On Innate:

Yes, if a magic item is purchased as Innate, anyone can use it. It's a net +1/2 Advantage since it negates the limitations of Castes of Reality and Affinity Rolls, and helps define magic item use.

On Attunement:
A character can try as often as they like, but items often have a very high Active Point value and require xtra time to offset the -1/10 AP attunement penalty.
GMs can certainly apply environmental or ant other bonuses to Attunement Ross in the same way they can any Skill Roll.

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?

17 hours ago, GoldenAge said:

To take your example...

You stumble across Stormbringer (yes, THAT sword)... No one is around... The power could be YOURS!

 

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.

20 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Which could be different from what we currently have, perhaps having lifting power accumulate faster or slower than damage, leaping etc.

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.

19 hours ago, Grailknight said:

How are Grabs handled in this system? Describe it to me.

 

The abstraction is workable for those familiar with the system but would be terrible for newbies. Characteristics, even with their pricing issues, give some basis for understanding an ability with just one word. Without them you'll have a wordier and harder read than 5th-6th and that won't fly for attracting new players.

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. 

19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

So we just buy EVERY skill from 11-, mostly separately???  How many points are you gonna give me to buy the skills?  Yeah, fine, if you rarely buy any, that might be OK, but my concepts are typically well trained.  And they're supers, not grunts...so *minimum* 18 DEX and INT.  I'm looking at one of em..."HTH" tough martial artist with extra limbs and stretching.  Skills?  

 

INT:  Analyze combat, analyze style, conceal, navigation, tactics.  

DEX:  acrobatics, breakfall, contort, lockpicking, stealth, teamwork

background:  martial arts, geology, mineralogy, KS finance, PS lapidarist...

 

The only one at 11- is Finance...which only costs 2, not 3.  

 

In your approach, I'd need +3 (23 DEX, 23 INT) on 12 skills...that's 72 points.

 

And as Hugh has pointed out...buying grouped levels?  They only apply one at a time.  They're not baseline.  I like those levels as finishing touches...but not to build that

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).

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

So, on your, let's say, INT skills...are you giving +1 to ALL of them with these "levels" you're using?  At the same time?  Cuz that's not how +1 to INT rolls is now.  If so, what's the cost?  Does it apply to background skills?  Even overall levels don't apply to background skills.  Do Intellect Skills include the Knowledge and Science skills?  What about the Professional Skills based off INT, like Architect or Accountant?  Others use DEX or PRE, tho, so it can't be all of em.  And if you say, ok, cross-list them?  You're just making things messy again.

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".

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

There's no gain here.  There's gain to

--splitting DEX into AGILITY and INITIATIVE, each of which are 1 point

--dropping the numbers for the 3 skills, and going to a ranks approach.  (Whether it's an overall NET gain is a separate question, but it does offer advantages.)  This, by and large, WOULD be the net effect of what you're suggesting, but I'd rather see it under Characteristics than skills, as would appear to be how your notion would best be implemented.

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.

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

It feels like this is being motivated by the notion that notable aspects of STR, CON, EGO, or BODY are somehow tied to skills.  They're not.  I'll grant that the character sheet gives that impression...but there are no *skill* rolls related to any

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.

I think the more likely scenario would be someone seeing this potential approaching the current owners of the IP to acquire it, perhaps with the existing Online game as a starting base to build on.

Hero is already very granular, so the breaking down of characteristics is not wholly out of the question, although I agree that it would be very counter-intuitive.

How could we break STR down?  Well, it can have in-combat STR effects.  A Martial Arts DC adds these STR effects to all Martial maneuvers, and costs no END, for 4 points.  If we accept "only martial maneuvers" is a -1/2 limitation, then +1 DC with all STR combat effects costs 4 points (or STR that provides only these effects is a -1/4 limitation).  This also maintains "only direct normal damage", AKA Hand Attack, as a -1/2 limitation, but on STR instead of Blast.  This leaves 1 point - there is your cost for Lifting.  It's like a forklift.  You need Lift to heft the object, and you can then Throw it.  If you want damage from that throw, then you also need enough damaging STR to reach the Damage you want to achieve.

STR minima and enhancement to real weapons by excess STR would require use of that damaging STR. My views that STR adding to a KA should be replaced by KA's that have extra dice requiring, and locking out, some STR.  We're part-way there with limitations for STR minima.  But this would work with either vision, so there's no benefit muddying the waters with decoupling STR from KA, No Range damage.

I may be less extreme than Doc in that my goal would be to price the components of STR (and other characteristics) at a level which equates the characteristic's price to the price of its component parts.  If we went all the way to Doc's model, then we might also have sample powers where you buy all the component parts with Unified Power to create the characteristic.

CON can stay as is.  CON rolls are rare enough that they don't need separate pricing.  Or, if you must, STUNned resistance costs 4 CP per +5 and +1 CON rolls cost 1 point.

DEX, INT, PRE each provide two key benefits.  Price them at 2 CP each.  Each provides "+1 to all of these rolls" (not counting Perception). That's 5 CP, and replaces Skill Levels.  For 3 CP, the +1 applies only to one relevant roll at any given time.  For +1, it only applies to one specific roll (replacing +1 to a skill for 2 CP).  For 2 CP, it can be +1 to one roll within a related group of rolls. For 4 CP, it enhances all rolls in a related group at once.

For 5 CP, you get +5 Lightning Reflexes.  Limit for applying only to certain actions.

For 5 CP, you get +1d6 PRE attacks.  Limit if only certain types of PRE attacks are enhanced.

For 5 CP, you get +1 to all Perception rolls.  For 4 CP, it's all rolls in a targeting sense group.  3 CP gets is all rolls in a sense group with no targeting senses, or one targetting sense.  2 CP gets only one non-targeting sense.

Ego remains 1 point.  +1 to all EGO rolls costs 2 CP.  1 CP for only one type of EGO roll (only to Push?).  The remaining 3 CP is resistance to Mental and Presence attacks. Limit to taste (maybe you are only hard to Mind Control, but much easier to trick with mental illusions or scan with telepathy or mind scan).

If we follow Doc's approach, it is consistent with Steve Long's decision not to retain the link to figured characteristics but reprice the primaries to reflect the real cost/value of the Figureds.

Many of the building blocks already exist, as people have devised ways to buy just some effects of many characteristics over the years, but these "just some" effects are typically priced very high compared to the characteristics themselves.

Oh, and maybe we also get more realistic that ED only against Fire is NOT 2/3 of the value of unlimited ED, and crank up those limitations to be priced more reasonably.

7 hours ago, dmjalund said:

the size of a slot of a multipower a power fills is based on it's Active Points. no amount of limitations will change that.

If you read GoldenAge's linked magic system, he has specifically altered that for his system.

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I think that's an underappreciated argument.  The absolute SPD and CV matter much less than the relative SPD and CV.  SPD/CV inflation starts with the baseline.  When it's too high, it forces everything else up...and it's even worse, because there's less *relative* difference between 4 and 6, than there is between 2 and 4.  The highly agile, quick types tend to need a 7, not a 6.

 

Another point here might be making +1 to all DEX rolls cheaper...so you can define the Olympic-caliber gymnast with a 13 DEX for initiative purposes, but +1, possibly even +2, to all DEX skills.  Maybe that's not needed, but it'd help cases like that, or for the master thief as we've mentioned. 

 

Last point for now...figured characteristics probably played a major NEGATIVE role in this process.  Because it was so much cheaper and easier to buy the brick's DEX up, and let the CVs come along for the ride.  5E doesn't even have a mechanism to raise CV directly.  That creates a pretty strong assumption that you're expected to go with it.  That slow super's 3 CV isn't good enough...and looks even worse on paper.  Flip side...if you define OCV and DCV as characteristics in their own right, where the baseline value is tied to the DEX, as it is with SPD...well, suddenly the grossly disproportionate, broken cost of DEX becomes explicit and glaring.

The skill levels issue is not dissimilar to Figured Characteristics.  Buying up the components of a characteristic increase was, and is, much more expensive than buying up the characteristic.  That carries the same incentive to inflate characteristics.  Given the Hero mantra is to get what you pay for and pay for what you get, this is a significant inconsistency in the system.

As to lower CVs, like lower DEX  and lower SPD, it's all relative.  That really slow Super likely does have a combat level or three (the 18 - 20 DEX bricks did, and dropping them to 8 - 10 DEX would not change that).  But a 5 OCV hits a 5 DCV just as often as an 8 OCV hits an 8 DCV, so that relativism remains.  But this would allow those Agents to hit with more frequency (and see their lower-DC attacks bounce off) instead of having ti kit out near-Super VIPER agents to make a dozen or two at least a bit of a challenge.

1 hour ago, MrAgdesh said:

23 becoming Default DEX is also possibly the fault of the "Joy of DEX" - another Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness pointers in Champions II.

23 DEX was the default, if not in the 1e example characters, certainly by the time we read the first Enemies book.  But we had no indication that 23 was well beyond an above-average to exceptional human in 1e!  As players, we didn't think our typical Energy Projector was an olympic-class gymnast or had an OCV and DCV comparable to Bruce Lee.

50 minutes ago, assault said:

 

They're already dangerously vulnerable to thugs and gangsters. 5 Spd comes closer to giving them the capabilities they actually showed, IMHO.

That depends on how competent you make the thugs and gangsters.  The heroes certainly got hit, but very seldom shot.  If thighs have SPD 2, then our Super can Dodge when the guns come out, then attack in the phases the thugs don't act in.  Only to fall to a blow to the head from behind - EVERYONE was KO'd by that cowardly blow from behind!

4 hours ago, GoldenAge said:

The Critical Miss penalty of 1d6 AVALD + a roll on the Crit Chart was included to reduce the chance that less experienced mages would attempt to cast large spells. A beginning character's base Magic Affinity Roll is usually 8- to 13- due to the expense (a 14- costs 12 AP for a single base Magic Affinity). Casters will also want/need to buy Orders of Magic to add bonuses to their base Magic Affinity Rolls. Generally, a caster will have no more than a +2 to +8 on his Magic Affinity Roll after purchasing Order Bonuses but Order bonuses can be increased over time with XP. As time goes by, he can increase his Order Bonus (immerse himself into his Order or discovering other Orders), making larger Magic Affinity Rolls easier to achieve.

Since spells can be purchased at any AP level (no caps) a character can build a spell that will grow in effectiveness as the character adds XP to his Order Bonuses.

Example:
Fireball - 8d6 RKA AoE 18m Radius. - 240 Active Points (wow, that's why there's no cap in frameworks!)
To cast this spell for its full effect would incur a -24 to the casters Magic Affinity Roll (not gonna happen for poor little Jimmy the Prestidigitator who is a part of the FIRE Order and only has a +3 Order Bonus. Not even a full day of ritual casting (gaining him an additional +7) will help. If he tries anyway it'll hurt, and maybe even kill him.

So, how does the player get that Fireball into his VPP or Multipower?  I'm still not clear how that VPP works with an unlimited max AP - why buy a control cost at all?

If he has a 60 point pool in a VPP (for a 150 point character, even 60 points invested with no control cost is a lot), he needs -5 in limitations to get that 240 AP spell in.  He can't possibly benefit from the full 240 AP, though.  He'll need the same -5 in limitations to squish it into a Multipower, but now he also pays either 6 points for a fixed slot or 12 for a flexible slot. He's paid for a ton of AP that he can't actually use.  Seems pretty frustrating for the player.

7 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The way I see it the reason for the “normal people” having high stats is because a lot of the published material was that way.   That kind of set the expectation on what characters needed to have for stats.  If the baseline SPD is 5 and you want a character that is a little fast you are going to buy a 6 SPD, which means if you want to be really fast, you need a 7-8 SPD.  The same is true for DEX and other stats.

Absolutely - and those benchmarks were set in 1e Champions, with no guidance as to "normal human", just "base normal has 10s and base figureds".

Normal Human showed up in Justice Inc., Espionage and especially Fantasy Hero (where "stats generally cap at 20" made D&D characters' 3-18 more comparable).

At 4e (when the systems were first unified), backwards compatibility could have been tossed in favour of rebalancing "normal human" stats for this unified, all-genres system.  That was probably the last real possibility.

I'll go you one better - drop all DEX by 9 - 10, and all SPD by 2.  That drops really slow Supers from 18-20 DEX, 4 SPD to 8-10 DEX, 2 SPD.  Average Supers fall from 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD to 13 - 17 DEX, 3-4 SPD. Fast characters go from 29-30 DEX, 6-7 SPD to 19-20 DEX, 4-5 SPD. And the Superhumanly Agile go from 32-35 DEX, 7-8 SPD to 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD.

And we actually have room to make Massively superhuman speed and agility go even higher.

If everyone drops the same, more or less, they interact with each other pretty much unchanged.  Base VIPER agents can be DEX 13, SPD 2 - 3.  A little less behind the curve.  Elite Agents can have DEX 18, SPD 3 - 4.  Agents become at least a bit more viable.

Oh, some other big ones for true GA (much once WW II starts):

Government and authority are solid and trustworthy. That goes for police, military - all civil authority. Any who are not are foreign infiltrators, and they are extremely rare. Those foreign governments of enemy powers, though, are vile and evil, and that permeates down to virtually everyone fighting on the Other Side.

The Supers are on the home front by whatever contrivance is necessary (Supes was locked out of service because, when he tried to enlist, he accidentally read the eye chart in the next room due to his X-Ray vision, and was 4F for lousy eyesight). The REAL heroes are the soldiers fighting overseas, and the Supers can never overshadow that.

Remember that the USSR is on our side - Uncle Joe (Stalin) is a standup guy that you'd be happy to see your daughter date!

6 hours ago, assault said:

I did a bit of stuff with the Golden Age about 15-20 years ago.

 

Golden Age superheroes were very cookie cutter. After noticing this, I created a template that included the common features of most Golden Age heroes, allowing me to really churn out the write-ups.

If I get around to it, I will post it here. It's on my old computer, so I can't just grab it. In any case, it was based on 250 point 5e characters, and would take a bit of modification for 6e and another point total.

Briefly though, I went with 20 Str, 20 Dex, 20 Con and 5 Spd as the baseline. About 100 points of characteristics, 125 of powers and 25 points of skills. Modify from there. Fairly low powered, but everyone was more or less the same. Naturally, these were starting versions of the characters.

You could drop SPD to 4 if most opponents are thugs and gangsters anyway (and if "Super" opponents are comparable).  15 - 20 STR and some brawling/boxing martial arts to get into the 6-8 DC realm would cover most Golden Age Supers.

The real issue may be the power disparity.  Lots of brawlers, many with one or two gimmicks (Sandman's Gas Gun; Shining Knight's winged horse; Hawkman's wings) but a few virtually omnipotent characters (the Spectre; Dr. Fate; Superman). For true GA (and SA), the heroes weren't overly challenged by combat - opponents were hard to locate and pin down, or were one-trick ponies, so once the hero figured out how they were avoiding detection/eluding capture or determined the workaround to their one trick, a punch in the jaw ended the adventure.  Even more so for the true super-powered characters like Superman, Namor, Human Torch, Spectre, etc.

That would not sit well with a lot of gamers, so many GA games really take their inspiration from Bronze Age stories set in the GA, like All-Star Squadron and Invaders, with Supers level opponents.

First off, I really like this presentation. It shows how viable a game based on the Hero system is. The mechanics are referenced, but behind the scenes.

The one item that stuck out for me was the Attunement rules - this seems like it will hold all Mundane characters out of using magic items.  Unless the intent is that all characters will have magic affinity that grows as the character gains experience, this seems problematic.

Not sure how I feel about "no AP cap in frameworks".  How is the VPP Control cost calculated if we ditch the AP cap? Also, a spell with long-lasting or far-reaching effects that can be cast outside of combat becomes a lot easier to access.  I can pile on Gestures, Incantations, Concentration, Extra Time (or take extra time for skill roll bonuses), 1 charge (do I need it more than once a day?), etc. to make access to those spells a lot easier.  I'm thinking of effects like slow fade Aid or Teleportation.  In fact, even raising the dead, the example wizard's goal, becomes a lot easier if I am prepared to require Extra Time of 1 hour and spend a week or more casting it for skill roll bonuses...

I've also never liked "buying this up requires special GM permission".   All point use is subject to GM oversight.  If it's tough to buy up Magical Affinity after the game starts, then I'm incented to sacrifice all other Build aspects to max that out at the start, instead of letting it grow as the character grows.  It's already a pretty pricy Power Skill at 3 points per +1.

The Critical Fail also seems very non-variable.  SMACK - you take some damage and an extra effect. Even if you could only fail on an 18, it's the same result as if you could only succeed on a 3 and rolled a 14.

Minor issues, though - the overall feel seems pretty solid.  A slate of Orders would be essential to a vibrant and diverse campaign, but that seems to be the expectation anyway. Or the players contribute to worldbuilding with their own Orders.

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The way I see it, Normal Characteristic Maxima work for some kinds of games, but rarely for Champions.  If you want a really gritty low-end street campaign, I could see it but normally it doesn't make sense.  In Heroic games its usually more reasonable, but there are a lot of larger-than-life heroic characters like Conan, Doc Savage, Tarzan, etc.

I think having guidelines for "normal" characteristics is useful in itself.  The biggest issue that creates in Hero is that these were defined well after "standard Champions builds" were largely hardcoded into the milieu.  Once a slow Super is defined as DEX 18-20, SPD 4; average is 23 - 26 DEX, SPD 5-6, fast is 29-30 DEX, 6-7 SPD and really fast is 32-35 DEX and 7+ SPD, it's a little late to say "oh, and normal humans generally cap out at DEX 20/SPD 4".

Those larger than life characters have had appearances in the comics, and they are not "slow super" by comparison.

There's also a difference between having expectations of "normal humans" and giving points out for specific spending.

13 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Normal Characteristic Maxima works fine for those 7-10 DC street level games. The fast 5 SPD people don't take it but was pretty common on the 4 SPD characters. That said, I found it more useful as a delineator for several house rules around the interaction between supers and NPC's. 

Setting those as the characteristic expectations is one thing.  Allowing 20 points of disadvantages for "has most or all characteristics within this range" makes no sense to me.  All it means is, if your concept keeps you in this range, you take this disadvantage because you already decided to have stats that allow it. If not, you don't take the disadvantage.  I would not allow 10 points for "no mental powers" or 5 points for "can't buy flight, gliding or teleport".  Why would I allow 20 points for "character is based on powers and skills instead of characteristics?".  Especially when we tack on "characteristics bought with limitations are powers and not restricted by NCM".

When we define peak humans as Primaries top off at 20, rarely a bit higher, and SPD caps at 4, maybe a rare 5, then allow Batman as a "highly trained normal" with STR 25, CON 23, DEX 26-29 and SPD 6-7, as a normal human, then we haven't really defined "normal humans" as fitting into those normal ranges.  We've also set the bar a lot higher to be "superhuman". 

When Green Lantern (normal guy with Power RIng) and the like have to have DEX 23-26 and SPD 5-6, we've defined that normal humans don't really cap out at 20/4 - these characters are not just "not superhuman" in the comics - they are not even "exceptional human" in those stats.  Batman, Tarzan, Conan  and Doc Savage are better - they're "exceptional/peak human".

I agree with ditching NCM.  However, when the game sets 21-30 as "legendary" and 20 as "peak normal", I'd expect Batman to be in the 20 range.  And he should be stronger than the Flash, Green Lantern and Green Arrow.  Any character without "beyond human normal" strength.  He should be more agile and faster than GL, GA, Aquaman and Cyborg. DEX was the big killer for "trained normal" characters.  His SPD should be at or above any character who is not a speedster or otherwise hyperfast.

The problem is created by "standard Supers" needing to be above "peak human" (not just "average human") to be remotely competitive.

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

If I'm building in 5E, it's hard to resist buying at least a 23 DEX, since it's a triple point anyway.  The economy of figured stats is simply too good.  But CSLs with all HTH or all Ranged are actually cheaper in 5E;  they're 5 points per.  In 6E, they're 8 points per.  The +1 to any non-mental combat is 10 in 6E;  in 5E, it's 8, and it can be used as DECV.  Not quite as expensive as you're suggesting...but clearly, figured stats, and especially DEX buying base OCV and DCV, is the *massively* cheaper and more effective approach.  

Largely why 23  became "default DEX".  That CSL with all HTH OR Range does not help Batman's martial arts and batarangs.  Even if it did, for 6 points (9 CP for +3 DEX - 3 CP saved on SPD), you get +1 OCV and +1 DCV. 5 points to have one at a time, that drops whenever you don't have a zero phase action to use them, is not comparable pricing.

8 points compared to 10 points for +1 OCV and +1 DCV isn't exactly a bargain either.

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Most interpretations for Batman that I've seen suggest normal characteristic maxes, a full suite of martial maneuvers, 2-3 overall skill levels, and more CSLs on top of that.  But note that even a 20 STR is lifting 400 kilos, or almost 900 pounds.  That's the world record for a 200 pound man executing a deadlift, which looks to fit the definition of Lift in 6E.  (The really big lifters, 300+ pounds, isn't that much higher, it's about 470 kilos.)

 

A problem with DEX, and INT, is that it's 5 points to get +1.  It doesn't *feel* like the 23 is greatly more agile, and the rules only say it's a difference of +1 on the roll.  Diminishing returns is also kicking in;  the 18 is a 13- roll, 84%.  The 23 is a 14-, or 91%.  Not that much of an improvement.  So, you tend to be looking at bigger margins, to justify the DEX mongering types like Beast, being able to do amazing things.  (Of course, we also go back to the separation between comics and RPGs.  The DEX mongers aren't hit because the writers refuse to have them hit.)

The Mayfair DC game used the Hero logarithmic scale, but every +1 was a doubling.  2 points was a Normal.  Not a lot of granularity for those normals, but then having variations in Hero make little difference to actual play, so the granularity here is largely an illusion.

The designer notes commented on Batman having a 5 STR because, while it could put his maximum lift a bit unrealistically high, it wasn't vastly out of human capability, and -well - He's Batman!

In a game, we likely don't allow a DCV so high that credible opponents need to roll a 3 to hit.

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The only types where this is true would be:

a)  non-combat types

b)  EXTREME range types...preferably mentalists, or blasters with at least Half Range Mods.  Oh, and both of these probably will need lots of Reduced END, at least to last.  

 

Note that this is mostly for supers.  For SPD 3 combats, well, OK.  It won't matter as much.  If the character is going to be hit twice per turn, then END and REC *matter*.  Yes, I'm from a more lethal school...do not remain helpless (which KO'd is) for long, or you are dead, AND combats in the SPD 5-6 range.

 

 

Martial Artists don't need huge END.  Reduced END is an option to massive END and REC (and, at least pre-6e, more cost effective - although recall that 1e was +1/4 for each halving, so 9 - 16 DCs was +1 1/4 to cost no END).

13 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

It’s a lot easier to boost up a few stats than to go over all the stats trying to figure out what is appropriate for your concept. 

How do you figure out which, if any, are the few stats you want to boost up without assessing all of them from the perspective of your concept?

13 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

5th edition has 17 stats including 3 movement stats.  6th edition has 20 stats including 3 movement stats.   6th edition also eliminated COM so it actually has 4 additional stats.  

Pre-6e, a lot of lower DEX characters looked to skill levels because their CVs would not be competitive in the campaign.  Someone had to create the 5 point DCV level because there was no way to directly buy up DCV.  I don't think that was less complicated than having OCV and DCV as separate stats, figured or not.  Having them as stats would have highlighted just how big a bargain DEX was.

13 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

In 5th edition I can buy up STR and CON to 25 and DEX to 20.  That gives me 5 PD & ED, 3 SDPD 10 REC 50 END and 36 STUN. I may or may not need to increase the PD & ED depending on what powers the character has.  I will probably want to buy up the SPD, but other than that it is not a bad starting character.   I don’t have to worry about my CV because those are based on DEX and under 5th edition are not really stats but are still calculated.  In 6th edition if I buy the same base stats, I still need to figure out my OCV, DCV PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN.  I can probably leave the OMCV & DMCV at base value, but all the rest need to be bought up.  Having to figure out 5-8 extra stats is not that complicated but is still more work. 

You are clearly arguing for retaining some form of Figured stats.  Would you suggest repricing of the stats to remove the bargain pricing of STR, CON and DEX, make selling back more than one Figured balanced and allow characters who buy up Figured rather than the primary stat to be point-efficient?

Like unclevlad, I question your starting stats.  This suggests that every Super should be able to bench press a Buick. Should the Human Torch have a 25 STR? That's in the realm of Legendary strength - some would asset that Batman and Captain America (as "peak humans") should not be up there in the Legendary realm.  Others would suggest maybe it's OK for Cap (due to the Serum) and/or Bats (with that obsessive training), but not for Nightwing or Hawkeye. STR was often bought higher than "concept" because the figured stats made it more cost-effective to do so.

CON is already Legendary for most Supers, necessitated by defense limits and the STUN mechanic. Maybe the main purpose of CON should be resistance to being stunned, not buying up several other stats at a discount.

DEX being linked to CV meant that peak human dexterity was the entry point for any Super.  If you wanted to be good at combat, you needed a higher DEX (or stupidly expensive combat skill levels as a substitute).  Again, the Batman conundrum.  If Bats has a 30 DEX (and so do Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Black Widow, Daredevil and so on), SpiderMan and Nightcrawler should be around 45, as they are much more agile than even the highest-trained human. ninja-bear notes mCVs below. I think the biggest failing of character updates in 6e was not dropping a lot of DEXes where the character wasn't super-agile by concept, but rather just needed DEX to have a competitive DCV.  DEX could then range like STR, with some characters right down at a 10. How many characters with a 20 - 26 DEX have any comment in their writeups about their peak human to legendary agility?

If my character is a normal person with powers, and I stat him out with an above-average STR, CON and DEX of, say, 13, 13 and 14, and assume those Figured are good enough (maybe invest 6 points and round SPD up to 3) I will have a very disappointing character who will rarely move, and be Stunned when most phases come up.  But so what, he can't hit anyway.

Setting OCV and DCV ranges and benchmarks is no harder than setting ranges and benchmarks for anything else in the game.

Many other games handle this by providing no way, or very limited options, to boost "secondary characteristics", but they are still there.  D&D 3e has AC, attack bonus (melee and range), damage bonus, hit point bonus, 3 saving throw bonuses, extra skills, skill bonuses, spell DC bonuses and so on. Having them all derived from 6 stats isn't the end of the story - you can buy some aspects up with Feats.  And many players chafe against the limits on their ability to customize a character - Hero's core strength.

We could limit Hero to only a few Characteristics with a quick nomenclature change, moving resistance to being Stunned, bonuses to CV, increased defenses, durability (higher STUN), Tirelessness (higher END), bouncing back (higher REC) and extra actions (higher SPD) to powers and skills.  We already have rules for increased skill and perception bonuses (levels),  initiative (lightning reflexes), HTH damage (Hand Attack) and PRE attacks and defense outside the "Characteristics" section.  Just move all the Figured there and suddenly we have less characteristics.  

But we really don't - just like including running, swimming and leaping as "powers" doesn't prevent you from calling them characteristics.

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Well lets not forget that most (if not all) official characters in 6th have bought up their OMCV. Which once you realize that this is only to represent what they had for free in Pre-6th. What makes that worse is that unless you need to use OMCV, such as a Mentalist, in 6th you are really just spending pkints on something useless.

With 20/20 hindsight, I think oMCV and dMCV should have started at zero - normal people have no skill in either. That would eliminate the "I have no mental powers, so I should sell back mOCV" issue.  How is a person with no mental powers somehow "deficient" if they have lower mOCV?

22 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Give him a masters degree…that would make anyone a villain eventually…

 

(As in repeatedly asking him why he didn’t get a PhD; it would drive him to madness and—pop—a supervillain.)

 

BTW: Pariah has a masters degree in science…  

Why didn't he get a PhD?

To the original question, I would say that the answer is neither. If properly priced, Figured can work, as can "no figured".

I think what is needed is better guidance on appropriate levels of these characteristics, as unclevlad notes. 

I agree with Steve Long's conclusion in making 5e.  If the secondary characteristics are properly priced, then there is no great benefit repricing primaries to have them add to secondary characteristics.  In many other games, the primaries are the only way to buy up secondary abilities.  A lock like that would violate the core Hero principal that you can build what you want. 6e pushed that further by removing the link between some characteristics.  The most common example is DEX no longer driving combat values, so now you can easily build an agile rogue who is not great in combat, and there is no costing disincentive to a low-DEX combatant with high OCV and DCV,

2 hours ago, assault said:

DC also had the Doom Patrol, which was a "hold my beer" response to the FF. It didn't produce any Doom grade villains though.

I've never seen the FF comparison before - a lot of people analogize them to the X-men (unusual appearances; leader an intellectual in a wheelchair), but the FF were out long enough before the Doom Patrol that they could have been created in response.

18 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

To briefly answer OP's question (and hopedully not derail the interesting discussion going on), I always dound the Figureds to give a hint at "how this universe works," so to speak:  the foundation of this is that; this and this contribute to that.  This is derived partly from this, and partly from those.  A person with a lot of this and rhis will just naturally have more od that, and a character without much of this or that must train hard (or spend points) to make up for a natural shortxoming in that right there."

 

Granted, I never understood how having a proper adventurer's robust constitution made you more resistant to electric shock, but it didn't matter; there it was in the math: a glimpse into the mechanics of this imaginary realm, and into the minds of the designers. 

 

An invitation to imagine alien life forms whose x and Y did not yield Z, but whose Z was derived from A, B, and Vitamin 7.  (Then, fourth or so years later, Marc Miller would start to do something similar with the characteristics of his aliens and creatures, and I immediately wanted to apologuze to players I havent seen in decades.  Sorry guys.  Feels great; plays awful.  That one's on me.)

 

Still, the glimpse was there, and a fundamental building block was presented in an easy and immediately-graspable manner.

 

Without figureds, you just have a really long list of characteristics and no real understanding of the interplay between them, or any grasp of what a "normal" amount would be, or what a decent ratio is, or even what is meager and what is fantastic.  "Okay, my Strength is... Fifteen, so I guess a reasonable PD would be...  Eighty-four?

 

Okay, that is an absurd, but not as much as you might think.  That simple little chart on the character sheet gave you more than just formulae: it gave you a quick grasp of scale and relationship in a way that even the mountain of text in the currrent rules can't offer.

 

Today, it is just a laundry list of characteristics, and to figure out how they work, you're just going to have to buy some and practice.

Well, yes and no.  Imagine a player who brings his first Super into the game.  He's a big, tough Brick with a 75 STR and a 40 CON - big and burly, so he has 20 BOD.

How will that player feel after his first game if he assumed that the relationship between primaries and figured would provide a good playable character, so his powerful Brick has 15 PD, 8 ED, 23 REC, 80 END and 78 STUN.  He may manage OK with the END and REC, but after the first 12d6 Punch gets 27 STUN past his defenses, and a slightly above-average Blast gets 41 STUN through, leaving him both Stunned and down to 10 STUN remaining, he may not think those ratios are all that great.

He's also likely to find that his 20 DEX, 7 OCV and DCV and 3 SPD are not all that spectacular either.

So I will submit that, at least in 6e, he would have known that he should consider buying up those secondary characteristics, and might have asked for some guidance on how high they should be.