Surrealone

I find this seems to be a superheroic point level thing and that heroic level games tend not to have this sort of issue. The difference between SPD2 and SPD5 is also monstrous in a heroic game ... and SPD6 characters are just stupendous.

Well put. Using RAW without randomization, there's still no guarantee of an opening even when one's chances look good. Your opponent may have full-moved or attacked, but that doesn't stop one of his/her compatriots from defending on his/her behalf ... or aborting to do so ... of fixating on you because his/her friend is in trouble and counter-punching on behalf of his/her buddy. This is why my original phraseology described the opening one looks for as 'that moment when you think you can take your swing without much worry of a counter-punch'; it's just not a given, at least, not with good players and a solid GM sitting at the table. I get that the speed chart isn't perfect, but it seems to me the variations introduce more problems than they solve. There's risk of: creating a SPD escalation/war due to player perception; short-changing players by denying them that for which CP was paid; skewing toward lower or higher speeds (depending on approach taken) -- just to name a few. The variations that concern me the most are those where a character is denied what was bought with CP. On example includes a character with the highest DEX (i.e. s/he paid to go first, discounting things like being 'covered' by someone with a gun pointed at him, of course) being unable to do so ... due to a variation's random rolls potentially denying them what they paid for. Another example includes a SPD2 character not being able to take an action on the opening segment of combat despite paying for a SPD that allows for an action on the opening segment of combat (segment 12) -- due to a variation's randomization of the segment on which combat opens. ​After much thought on the topic, I can't say I'm pro-randomization. I initially liked Christopher's idea, but analysis of his variation as well as the others mentioned within this thread have all given me pause in one way or another. The game's combat flow isn't perfect, for sure, but I feel very strongly that when introducing variations they should always be improvements to RAW ... and never 'worse' than RAW or unfairly skewed in some way. In this case I see the aforementioned risks as 'worse' than RAW ... with the least acceptable being those that result in players not getting what they paid for with CP. I also tend to feel that most of the concerns raised here can be resolved with good GM'ing and need no artificial solution/crutch in the form of a variation. ​CONSIDER: Not telling players the SPD/DEX of their opponents ... coupled with those opponents holding actions (in terms of moving at a lower DEX than one has ... and in terms of holding actions until segments where one normally has no phase) ... solves every concern raised in this thread about movement/action predictability ... with none of the aforementioned risks AND without gimmicky cards, hats, die rolls, or house rules. Ok so, it doesn't solve reaction predictability ... i.e. being able to get out of the way of that haymaker after full-moving ... without aborting. Big deal; GM it and abort! Your players don't know the character aborted unless you tell them -- which you shouldn't! Or better still, have a comrade intercede so there's no need for the character to abort. But for heaven's sake ... please don't use gimmicks/approaches that short-change players... as a crutch. After analysis, that's how I feel on the matter... Note: I really appreciate the variation ideas and opportunities to explore them, as I'd never given much thought to mixing up the SPD chart. Now I thoroughly understand where I stand on the topic should it ever come up in a game I'm contemplating locally. Surreal

So your saying your 'elves' are from ElfQuest, then?

I understand strikes, but if someone's attacking you with a weapon, disarming them so they cannot strike you with it seems pretty defensive to me (even though it requires an attack roll). As a result, I'm baffled by this text on page 149 of CC: Despite RAW, there's always GM prerogative on it. I'm pretty sure some would allow disarm to be a defensive action in certain circumstances -- especially where it enhanced cinematic/dramatic effect.

Start of each combat... Regarding the first sentence in this quote: Interestingly, the intent of which you speak actually removes tactical game play -- and again skews toward higher speeds. Specifically, the kind of thinking you just described regarding the haymaker ... is referred to as 'looking for an opening' -- i.e. that moment when you think you can take your swing without much worry of a counter-punch. Every boxer, martial artist, gunslinger, sniper, etc. does it. In Hero System I would argue that it's a tactical 'must' when slower SPD characters face higher SPD characters, as that kind of play is critical to offset the advantages that come with high SPD and/or DEX. Given this, I'm forced to wonder why a thoughtful GM would desire to remove, curtail, or alter the ability to 'look for an opening' during the fight? After all, looking for an opening is PART of the fight ... and all combatants do it in the real world. I understand the dislike of mechanical representations thereof, but how else do you simulate it??? Regarding the second sentence in your quote: ​I concur -- a d12 would entail even distribution across all steps of the SPD chart. At that point, the die roll no longer introduces the skew that was mathematically shown in a previous post. However, the previous assertion (see above) still remains a problematic one...

Only if one builds around DEX and/or SPD to begin with. To Manic Typist's 1st point: The game mechanics readily allow for investments in things other than DEX/SPD to offset investments in DEX/SPD. Knowledge of the game's mechanics combined with patient, tactical play of a character whose power(s) are tunable/flexible is, for example, a recipe for a low SPD/DEX glass jaw to open up a can of whoop-ass on SPD6, DEX30 foes (or small teams of SPD 3-5 foes with 18+ Dexes) who see/know he's coming Standard brick-like tactics can also be employed among characters whose investments are defensive instead of SPD/DEX-based or tunable/flexible in nature. (e.g. Low SPD/DEX character who soaks the hits but can't hit SPD 6, DEX30 fast guy ... easily grabs a car in an adjacent hex and then swings it like a baseball bat to hit the area where SPD 6, DEX 30 fast guy is -- buh-bye!) I've seen GMs who don't tend to like that (i.e. they insist on certain physical minimums .. which really handcuffs one to DEX/SPD), and I have no idea why. After all, players of lower SPD/DEX characters have to work harder (i.e. know the mechanics ... and have the situational awareness to employ and react to them as the combat runs) than players of higher SPD/DEX characters to get the same or similar combat effects ... specifically because lower SPD/DEX characters have fewer actions to work with and, thus, less room for error. To Manic Typist's 2nd point: Even if combat is common, you'll almost always have support types in the game who sacrifice some combat efficiency in order to have more utility outside of combat. These are the people who tend to move the storyline -- because they've got more to work with outside of a fight (be it skill or power-based)... which is where most storyline movement takes place. Again, as an example, this is where the highly flexible/tunable glass jaw can really shine -- even if s/he lacks a pile of skills based on DEX. (Using your examples, I ask: Who needs stealth to sneak up on a guard when you have invis via a VPP? Who cares about lockpicking if you can use TK with fine manipulation from your VPP to unlock the door?) I think you get the idea: DEX and/or SPD is only important to those who build around such things ... and to players whose GMs shackle them to such things. Surreal P.S. What this has to do with PRE and EGO is anyone's guess. We seem to be WAY off topic...

Clearly someone's not reading, again, as I already said I liked the idea. That said, I'm analyzing the idea to see if it actually makes sense to use it. So far, I've demonstrated that it involves inherent unfairness, which gave me pause. So I next inquired as to the thinking behind iintentionally introducing unfairness into the game ... and also intentionally denying people what they bought and paid for with their CP (which also seems a bit unfair) -- to try to understand it and see if I could get behind it, myself. That, of course, is not possible when people incorrectly ASSUME impassioned argument where there's only analysis and inquiry. It's also not possible when the person who threw out the idea being analyzed renders terse remarks and walks away from the discussion rather than render responses that might help another understand the frequency of occurrence and precise rationale for denying players what they buy with their CP ... and introducing unfair skews into the game that positively affect some characters while negatively affecting other characters. Care to deal yourself back in ... in order to share how often you do this to your players' characters and why you do it -- knowing the effects on characters, spent CP, and the like within your game? Or are you still assuming that someone who did a detailed analysis and asked some follow-up questions ... was doing something other than those things? If you had people roll for initiative, would you give people a cost break on DEX -- making it, say 1 CP per 2 pts of DEX ... since you're basically throwing away one of the major things a character gets when a player buys DEX for that character (thereby rendering DEX only used for skills in a 6e world)? I'm asking because if you make it do/affect less, it should cost less, right???

Really? You cherry-picked the lead sentence out of that paragraph and responded to it while ignoring what followed it? I ask because doing so seems to be the cause of your question, here ... and your reply. But I'll answer the question anyway by paraphrasing the rest of the paragraph you skipped in your quote -- and response: What I was saying was that the probability of the outcome of the 2d6 roll unfairly leans toward the higher end of the speed chart due to uneven probability distribution. With an even distribution you'd see the same delta between every step on the speed chart. But that's not what the math shows. The math shows larger deltas in probability on the higher end than we see on the lower end (as a generaility). More specifically, the cause is segment 7 having the highest probability of outcome per 2d6 throw -- resulting in speeds that entail a phase on segment 7 being the best 'value' on the chart for the CP spent. Those are, of course, all higher speeds. And what percentage of the time does combat suddenly occur in your games? 80%? 10%? I'm asking because, again, it's an indicator of how often you knowingly and intentionally introduce skew toward higher speeds in your game. Your players who build for your games should probably be told that, as well ... since, you know, a player with a SPD2 character vision might not like your delta effectively rendering his chance of acting without aborting on the first segment of combat ... to be the same as a SPD1. If you do it 80% of the time, then he's being treated the same as SPD1 80% of the time ... which might not sit well with him. But if you do it 10% of the time it might be ok with him. Your players should be allowed to make informed choices ... as well as adjust their character vision if your artificial and intentional skew negatively impacts that vision. Ok, this is an interesting twist, and I can see why you'd suggest it. That said, now you're potentially giving an action to low speed characters on a segment where they have no phase -- which basically punishes high speed characters while incenting low speed characters. i.e. The high speed guy suddenly thinks, "If we're going to play this way, I should have shaved some points on speed to take advantage of the free opening actions!" ... while the low speed guy is happy he's getting an action during a segment where he has no phase. ​I have to ask: What, exactly, is wrong with the 'you get what you pay for' approach RAW takes? Why this need to monkey with the probabilities in a way that hurts some and helps others based on SPD - denying people what they bought with their CP? If avoidance of the first post-seg-12 REC is Christopher's issue, then why not do away with THAT (which no one paid for!) and let the characters receive their actions on the phases for which they paid for them with their CP??? (This, of course, entails everyone who isn't SPD1 having an action on the first segment of combat: segment 12...)

Sure. I'll use 2d6 to do so since people are leaning that way... Using 2d6, there are 36 combinations and 11 possible outcomes when rolling 2d6. The probabilities (rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent) of those outcomes across thousands of throws are well-documented as follows: Outcome = 2 .... (2.77% probability per throw) Outcome = 3 .....(5.55% probability per throw) ​Outcome = 4 .....(8.33% probability per throw) Outcome = 5 .....(11.11% probability per throw) Outcome = 6 .....(13.88% probability per throw) Outcome = 7 .....(16.66% probability per throw) Outcome = 8 .....(13.88% probability per throw) Outcome = 9 .....(11.11% probability per throw) Outcome = 10 ...(8.33% probability per throw) Outcome = 11 ...(5.55% probability per throw) Outcome = 12 ...(2.77% probability per throw) If the outcome of the throw determines the segment on which combat starts, then each probability, above, can be assigned to its corresponding segment, and the probabilities for each segment on which a character has a phase can be added to one another to yield the probability of an outcome corresponding to when a character of a certain speed has a phase. Likewise, the probabilities for each segment on which a character does NOT have a phase can be added together to yield the probability of an outcome NOT corresponding to an off-segment (as opposed to a phase). (And the two, when summed, would equal 100% if not for rounding as noted, above.) Doing so results in the following table: SPD=1, Phase on Segment(s)=7Probability of outcome on a phase= 16.66% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 83.28% SPD=2, Phase on Segment(s)=6,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 16.65% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 83.29% SPD=3, Phase on Segment(s)=4,8,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 24.98% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 74.96% SPD=4, Phase on Segment(s)=3,6,9,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 33.31% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 66.63% SPD=5, Phase on Segment(s)=3,5,8,10,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 41.64% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 58.30% SPD=6, Phase on Segment(s)=2,4,6,8,10,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 49.96% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 49.98% SPD=7, Phase on Segment(s)=2,4,6,7,9,11,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 61.07% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 38.87% SPD=8, Phase on Segment(s)=2,3,5,6,8,9,11,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 66.62% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 33.32% SPD=9, Phase on Segment(s)=2,3,4,6,7,8,10,11,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 73.89% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 22.22% SPD=10, Phase on Segment(s)=2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 83.28% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 16.66% SPD=11, Phase on Segment(s)=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12Probability of outcome on a phase= 99.94% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 0% SPD=12, Phase on Segment(s)=ALLProbability of outcome on a phase= 99.94% Probability of outcome on an off-segment: 0% One would expect an even delta in probability between each step on the speed chart if the outcome were to be fair, but as we can see, it's anything but an even distribution, as the probability gap between individual steps on the speed chart tends to widen as we increase speed. Right up until we hit SPD 7, where the gap between 7 and 8 shrinks again ... and then starts growing as you climb the speed chart, some more. In general, it's absolutely skewed toward the high end of the speed chart. Clearly if I can afford SPD 7, it's the sweet spot in terms of performance (probability) to cost ratio. Obviously, most characters can't ... but the math, above, shows that there's real, tangible incentive to pushing faster speeds ... which has the effect of dis-incenting slower ones (something that would NOT happen if the probability distribution were even across all speeds on the speed chart). Looking at this carefully, the best breakpoints I see all involve speeds that entail phases on segment 7 ... something driven by 7 being the highest probability outcome among the 11 possible outcomes on a 2d6 throw. That is until you hit SPD 12.. as the inability for 2d6 to produce 1 as an outcome means combat will never begin on segment 1, which is what SPD12 gets you when you buy it, so there's no sense buying SPD12. SPD 11 is effectively the new SPD 12 in a 2d6-driven system like this ... and that's more evidence of skew toward the top end. You make SPD11 the new SPD12 ... and no one uses SPD12 because a throw can't result in 1 ... but probability-wise, SPD2 becomes the new SPD1 despite SPD1's phase (7) still being a potential outcome on 2d6. It really doesn't help that the probability of an outcome selecting for SPD 2 is a mere hundredth of a percent off from SPD 1 ... basically horribly dis-incenting anyone being the speed of an average human being ... even in heroic games. In fact, in Christopher's game he should probably give SPD 2 characters an automatic 35pt PHYSICAL COMPLICATION (All the time, Fully [by 76-100%]) defined as follows: 'As likely to be able to act without aborting in the first segment of combat as a toddler'. Note: I chose 'fully' because the probability of 2d6 outcome on an off-segment for SPD 2 is: 83.29% ... which falls into the 76%-100% range. I also chose a physical complication because the cause of this is, indeed, purely physical -- namely, the GM's choice of mechanics that render the probability for SPD 2 and SPD 1 within 0.01% of one another -- something that's certainly not the character's fault. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, this is the sort of thing that will cause someone with a SPD2 vision of his/her character ... to make it SPD3, instead. I've shown my math. Now it's tour turn, Doc. In fact, I requested supporting evidence first, so it was your turn even before I did this, I think... P.S. Please feel free to check my math. I spot-checked it, but I am human...

At a group level it ceases to be 'cheap' when you factor in every player purchasing it. 6x the cost of CC adds up fairly quickly. That said, I'd rather spend money on CC (and already did) instead of, say, an evening at the movies with popcorn, drinks, and the like. When put in that context on a per-person basis, I tend to agree that it's cheap.

Around 6 is -not- 6. You'll have to demonstrate to me that it doesn't have undue impact on lower speeds (potentially resulting in homogenous speeds and/or a speed escalation) -- for me to accept your assertion. Right now, RAW helps ensure that in most (clearly not all) cases involving SPD 2 or higher, everyone tends to get a non-abort action and/or a chance to hold an action to avoid aborting -- in most combats. That's what helps balance slow/fast speeds. ​Please show me how that balance isn't tipped/skewed toward higher speed characters via randomization. I'm willing to bet that if Christopher takes a close look at his PC's speeds, they're all pretty close to one another (i.e. homogeneous) rather than heterogeneous as is common for many games. Of course he can answer however he likes, but I'm willing to assume he'll give us accurate intel.

Most of what I've encountered as a player has been 5th Edition -- with re-use of 4th Edition add-on material to support it in a pinch. 6th seems to be the pariah in the gaming community. I speculate that this is largely because it's hard to get in hardcopy format, doesn't have the same array of add-on material, and the two, combined, add up to 'difficult and expensive to switch to'. I recently did a very intense comparison between 5th and 6th editions to determine if a jump from 5th to 6th would make sense for my current group -- complete with a 15 page summary write-up on characteristic, skill, power, and other rule deltas between them. Let me just say that with exception of the change from hexes to meters, I see a LOT 'duh, why didn't they do that sooner?!' changes in 6th ... and am actively trying to move the group in that direction. The hexes to meters thing is really fine (and works well, mechanically) to be fair, it's just a pain for us because we use miniatures ... meaning it added (more simple) math.

It is neat, but it still has undue and likely unfair impact on slower speed characters. With exception of SPD 1 characters, per RAW everyone gets an action on Segment 12 -- which basically ensures in most games that even low-speed characters get to do -something- other than abort. It also helps allow for a held action among slower speed characters as the combat unfolds/commences -- so they can look for an opening or burn the held action (instead of going into perma-abort mode) when dealing with higher speed characters. The ability to hold that action and use it when an opening presents itself ... is part/parcel of how low and high speed characters balance out, as not everyone with low speed is a brick (examples: normals ... and paranormals with non-brick abilities that simply aren't fast). ​How fun would it be to be SPD 2 and find yourself usually in an abort cycle in combat -- because 1d12 or 2d6 often came up as something other than 6 or 12? Not very... IMPACT: Unfortunately, this kind of randomization is prone to causing an artificial SPD escalation during character creation. As players build characters for the game I would expect to see the PC's buy as much SPD as they can in order to handle the randomization better ... or buy SPDs similar to one another (as they find the balance point between what they can afford and how fast they can be). In either case, I think the artificial introduction of chance into the action sequence has the unfortunate effect of dis-incenting a healthy mix of both slow and fast PC's. But hey, if a GM wants to incent higher speeds and/or a homogenous set of speeds in the game ... by dis-incenting slower speeds through randomization ... it's his/her game.

I see it used a lot for similar things at the heroic level. Examples: CON roll to avoid sea sickness; CON roll to avoid air sickness if someone's never flown before; CON roll to handle a lot of time in high heat with nothing to drink; CON roll to eat bugs for sustenance if someone's not from a culture that eats bugs; CON roll to avoid coughing fits on smoggy days in Beijing; and CON roll to ... you get the idea.

Narf, Not sure why you quoted me, as I can't answer the 2d6 question; Christopher would have to answer that, since he was indicating he should use 2d6. I didn't follow it either, if it makes you feel any better, so I'd like an explanation, too.

I really like this idea for Heroic level games (of all genres)! I actually think the predictability of commencing in Segment 12 is spot-on/appropriate for Superheroic games (in the Superhero genre) -- primarily because it gives the Supers a phase to go at it ... and then an immediate breather/recovery ... allowing for something a bit more cinematic. I am forced to note, however, that the d12 approach may contribute to a SPD race, as the impact of the outcome of the roll is inversely proportional to a character's SPD. i.e. Lower speed characters have a lot more at stake than higher speed characters ... because unless a low-SPD character is very lucky, the roll result is more likely to require them to 'abort' their next action to defend themselves ... than it is for a high-SPD character. (i.e. No way to hold an action, initially, and then use that held action to save one's hide or look for an opening ... as is common for low-SPD characters.) I mention the SPD race and abort concern largely because the d12 approach could make the game unfun for a low-SPD character's player ... if all s/he can do is abort, abort, abort, etc.

And also get complaints about making the game 'more mathy' ... from people who can't be bothered to do simple division. ​Not an issue for me, but the 'too much math' perception is a real one when it comes to how people new to Hero System perceive it. That's probably why CON is still around...

Whether it devalues it by 'much' is a matter of opinion. That said, devaluation is devaluation, and I think we're both agreed that such uses of EGO -do- serve to devalue PRE. As for your EGO use list, most of the items you listed that didn't involve substitution for PRE... entail EGO rolls. Honestly, 2pt skill levels with EGO rolls make a lot more 'economic' sense when character building than raw EGO does ... for non-mentalists. It's not just economics/efficiency at play, either, as there's a subtle but important distinction between raw EGO and skill at making EGO rolls -- it's the difference between raw willpower (i.e. actual EGO) ... and the skill of focusing the mind to exert one's will. Most normals (whether skilled, competent, etc.) have some of the latter and little, if any, of the former, while historic figures whose names we all know (Carnegie, Edison, Bonaparte, Hitler, Reagan, Thatcher, Gates, etc., etc.) have quite a bit of the former (in addition to PRE) ... and probably a good bit of the latter, too. But I digress. CON isn't the new COM; it was and still is good for resisting drugs, infection, and stun effects. It's also decent for determining how long breath can be held, how long someone might have in a vacuum before the blood boiling effect begins to take a major toll, etc. As Tasha said, it's often make/break in fights - and it's value has remained constant in the Hero System as a result.

Sadly, EGO is darn near the new COM of the 6e world since its only real play outside of resisting mentalists' effects (including breakout rolls) is ... EGO rolls. That said, I don't see that as a good reason to use EGO to devalue PRE, but that's me.

I feel the same way. Segmented movement with a turn equaling 12 seconds allows for a LOT more precision than the AD&D round (for example) -- without the need for the GM to handwave the order of events. The gameplay is also a lot more tactical in nature with segmented movement, because now you can actually 'look for an opening' -- something super relevant when lower speed characters are interacting with higher speed characters. "I've got a held action and if I don't use it this segment I'll lose it since the next segment is my phase. Hmm, he just attacked my teammate; I think I'll half-move up to him and POW!" -- says the guy playing a SPD 2 character regarding the SPD6 attacker he is about to throttle. (I take immense pleasure in doing that with low speed support characters, by the way. It takes a lot of patience, but it's SOOOO worth it ... as long as you make it count.)

That was rather my point! It was noted AND appreciated!

You're my hero! You know why...

No, you haven't missed anything. As for the topic, so far we have: 5th Edition: RAW allows either PRE or EGO to be used (whichever one likes, which usually translates to whichever is higher) for comparison when determining the effectiveness of a presence attack 6th Edition: RAW allows PRE to be used for comparison when determining the effectiveness of a presence attack, but RAW also notes that in some situations alternate defenses (such as EGO) may be appropriate. My opinion: At 1CP per pt of PRE, PRE is an expensive characteristic for something that would only play into interaction skills (assuming you let EGO or PRE apply). Even the same-cost INT characteristic sees more use ... for science skills, professional skills, INT-based skills (of which there are a lot more than PRE-based skills), and the big one ... PER Rolls. Thus, to make PRE worth the 1 CP one pays for it, I'd argue that PRE should be the primary charactertistic used for comparison when determining the effectiveness of a presence attack. This is congruent with the change from 5er to 6e, and in that same vein EGO should only really play into it if an affected character is forced to do something one wouldn't be disposed to doing due to the PRE roll total (such as 'surrender' or 'flee' due to being cowed at PRE+30 .... when the character has a Complication like 'never runs from a fight'). In such case, I'd think an EGO roll would suffice to continue fighting (i.e. to overcome the effect of the PRE attack). That said, it's your world, and if you're ok with relegating PRE to 1CP per pt of PRE purely to influence interaction skills -- because you allow EGO to substitute for PRE as defense against PRE attacks -- by all means, run it as it pleases you.

I ran into this when I first came here, too. A search feature will appear after you've hit a minimum number of posts.

Check the Luck table for when 1, 2, or 3 pts of luck ... are rolled. Reverse it if it's 'unluck'.