Figured or Not-Figured, That Is The Question...

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

OK this is a different claim than your previous one, but its pretty easy to answer: what effect does very good looks have that being very intimidating not give you?

 

Steve Long's specific reasoning was that COM had no mechanical effects beyond adjustments to mechanics that were governed by another characteristic, being PRE, and therefore was not truly a "characteristic" at all. That logic moved me from a "retain COM" traditionalist to his way of thinking.

 

To your question, none although it may apply in different ways and/or to different people. Which, oh look, is how Striking Appearance works!

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You misunderstand.  At no point did I remotely argue that we should go back to figured characteristics. I simply argued that the change to no figured characteristics undervalued these three stats.  They don't cost enough.  So arguing how you'd do it with figured characteristics is not relevant.

 

My point was that the costing was in no way superior under the Figured Characteristics model, which I believe the costs I laid out demonstrated. I could have the same END, more ED and more resistance to being stunned for a comparable cost in 5e to the cost you consider lowballed in 6e.

 

Back in the SETAC days, there was some talk of repricing both primary and secondary characteristics to retain "figured"s with a pricing model that didn't make STR, CON, DEX and EGO bargain-priced.  That is, the price of STR no Figured plus PD, STUN, leaping and REC would be close to, if not exactly, the cost of STR with Figured.

 

Steve went with "if the prices are appropriate both ways, what is the added benefit of the Figured option?"  I would have included repricing to incorporate Figured as a toolkitting option, had I been the final decisionmaker, or maybe I would have started out including it and cropped it for space considerations later.

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

To me, it is the reverse problem.  If the Human Torch should really only have a 13 STR and 13 CON, and as a consequence, has to spend way more on STUN, END and REC to be viable than "The Very Fit Human Torch", we are penalizing the concept.  I guess I will be the android Golden Age Torch instead and justify higher STR and CON with his android body.  Why should the player who builds to concept rather than to efficiency be penalized?

 

A better discussion of character design factoring in expected STUN, END, REC would have been a great addition. Including this discussion in the genre by genre examples (like 1e designed Crusader, Starburst and Ogre) would have been ideal.

 

I think I didn’t express myself well. I never said Human Torch should be limited to 13 STR and 13 CON because he’s fit and must buy up 25 STR And CON and change background to Android. I asked why MUST he be 25 STR and CON? Just because? So perhaps a better model of the fit Human Torch is 15 STR and 20 CON. And maybe buy RED END and or END battery? I’m fully aware that characteristics might have to bought up higher than what SFX just because of game mechanics. Are you really going let a PC stay at 2 PD because he is normal? FWIW, I’m OK with characters paying a little tax if it makes the character more playable. SFX-Cinematic Hero if you will. 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

To me, it is the reverse problem.  If the Human Torch should really only have a 13 STR and 13 CON, and as a consequence, has to spend way more on STUN, END and REC to be viable than "The Very Fit Human Torch", we are penalizing the concept.  I guess I will be the android Golden Age Torch instead and justify higher STR and CON with his android body.  Why should the player who builds to concept rather than to efficiency be penalized?

 

A better discussion of character design factoring in expected STUN, END, REC would have been a great addition. Including this discussion in the genre by genre examples (like 1e designed Crusader, Starburst and Ogre) would have been ideal.

 

I think I didn’t express myself well. I never said Human Torch should be limited to 13 STR and 13 CON because he’s fit and must buy up 25 STR And CON and change background to Android. I asked why MUST he be 25 STR and CON? Just because? So perhaps a better model of the fit Human Torch is 15 STR and 20 CON. And maybe buy RED END and or END battery? I’m fully aware that characteristics might have to bought up higher than what SFX just because of game mechanics. Are you really going let a PC stay at 2 PD because he is normal? FWIW, I’m OK with characters paying a little tax if it makes the character more playable. SFX-Cinematic Hero if you will. 

[Grailknight]

On 8/28/2024 at 12:54 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

You misunderstand.  At no point did I remotely argue that we should go back to figured characteristics. I simply argued that the change to no figured characteristics undervalued these three stats.  They don't cost enough.  So arguing how you'd do it with figured characteristics is not relevant.

 

But going to No Figured did effectively raise the cost of these three characteristics, it's just hidden in their lower starting values.

 

With Figured, most supers' characters would have base REC between 9 and 20, END between 46 and 76 and STUN between 30 and 60. Under No Figured, everyone has 4, 20 and 20 and has to spend from the same base. REC and STUN are priced about right at 1 and .5. END should probably be 3 per 1 point instead of the current 5 per 1. 

 

While the current prices keep things fair at character generation, they cause problems in their interaction with Adjustment Powers.  Adjusting END in particular is far too effective even with the 1/2 Effect of being a Defensive Power.

Edited September 1 by Grailknight

[LoneWolf]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

To me, it is the reverse problem.  If the Human Torch should really only have a 13 STR and 13 CON, and as a consequence, has to spend way more on STUN, END and REC to be viable than "The Very Fit Human Torch", we are penalizing the concept.  I guess I will be the android Golden Age Torch instead and justify higher STR and CON with his android body.  Why should the player who builds to concept rather than to efficiency be penalized?

 

 Actually without figured stats both characters pay the exact same amount for STUN END and REC.  It is only with figured stats that different characters pay a different amount for the same stats. Doing away with figured stats also lowered the cost of some of the formerly primary stats.  CON cost 1 point per point instead of 2 and DEX costs 2 points instead of 3.   Neither concept should be rewarded or penalized for sticking to their concept.  But with figured stats the first human torch is penalized compared to the fit human torch.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

While the current prices keep things fair at character generation, they cause problems in their interaction with Adjustment Powers.  Adjusting END in particular is far too effective even with the 1/2 Effect of being a Defensive Power.

 

Well this is the thing: you have to consider how it balances against the rest of the game, not just what you estimate it was in previous editions.  5 points per 1 END is outrageously cheap and makes END no longer a concern in the game.  Maybe you like it that way, or you don't, but that doesn't matter. Why even HAVE Endurance as a stat if its made irrelevant?

 

Quote

Steve Long's specific reasoning was that COM had no mechanical effects beyond adjustments to mechanics that were governed by another characteristic, being PRE, and therefore was not truly a "characteristic" at all.

 

Yes, but I demonstrated that it has other uses.  So repeating that doesn't really move the discussion along.  If his argument is invalid, then it doesn't matter why he came to that conclusion.  Since Comeliness was primarily a roleplaying and interaction stat, the fact that it has no combat mechanical effect is meaningless.  It is inescapable fact that positive appearance has an effect on interaction and behavior of people aka "pretty privilege" and how people and even creatures react to hideous things. 

 

A COM roll was a great complimentary roll for a lot of interaction skills, and a high or low COM would give role play and interaction hooks: man she's hot!  Holy crap that dude is ugly.  As Bob Greenwade wrote, there are a lot of ways you can and we DID use Comeliness in the game.  It was a useful and classic stat, that is an actual aspect in life.  We're not all reduced to Batman or Woody Allen; presence has its place but is not the sum of interaction.

 

 

[Grailknight]

I think the mistake Steve Long made here was deleting COM and then adding Striking Appearance. He should have taken a sideways step.

 

With hindsight, I would have changed COM to Appearance (APP). Then I would have kept it in the stat bloc with a base 0. You would use the exact text and pricing of Striking Appearance and just add a short paragraph saying that your APP needed to be defined as to what circumstances it affected. That way being dazzlingly beautiful, frightfully ugly, quietly reassuring or smarmily disconcerting would all cost the same. There'd be no need to "buy" a characteristic into negatives to achieve an effect.

[Doc Democracy]

Personally, the reason I think that COM does not fit into the "characteristic" category in the game and is better realised as an adjunct element is because it does not follow the "more points stronger, fewer points weaker" paradigm.

 

In every other characteristic there is no downside to higher values and no upside to lower values.  With COM there was that strange bit when you went low it actually became useful to scare or intimidate (and in clever hands) to engender pity and charity.  In some cases, I saw a high COM being used negatively against a character due to prejudice against "beautiful airheads".  COM could be a judgement call, other characteristics require no such judgement.

 

Doc

[unclevlad]

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well this is the thing: you have to consider how it balances against the rest of the game, not just what you estimate it was in previous editions.  5 points per 1 END is outrageously cheap and makes END no longer a concern in the game.  Maybe you like it that way, or you don't, but that doesn't matter. Why even HAVE Endurance as a stat if its made irrelevant?

 

5E END Reserve is 1 point for 10 END, with REC at 1 point per, rather than 2.  Why bother with END costs when you can do this?  

 

If there's an issue with not needing to track END because you won't run out...I simply don't buy that as a blanket assertion.  WHY?  What SPDs are we talking about?  How high are you buying END and/or REC, or an END Reserve?  How often do you *plan* to take an in-turn recovery, when feasible?  How long do you anticipate combat running...2 turns max?  Kinda sounds like live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse.  Or how pitchers are handled in baseball these days...gimme 3 innings of 120% effort every third game, for a year til you blow out your arm, then we'll move on to the next one.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

5E END Reserve is 1 point for 10 END, with REC at 1 point per, rather than 2.  Why bother with END costs when you can do this?  

 

... do you build every character with End Reserve?  No?  Why don't you?

[Gauntlet]

42 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

... do you build every character with End Reserve?  No?  Why don't you?

 

There are a couple of reasons. One would be that you can take a recovery during your phase for Characteristic END (and STUN as well). Second, if you are out of END you can still utilize powers requiring END by using your STUN. Now these two things are something you will definitely not always want to do, but they do give you some advantages in rather bad situations.

Edited August 29 by Gauntlet
Forgot to add that it wasn't something you always would want to do.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sure, I just wanted him to think about his question a bit more deeply.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure, I just wanted him to think about his question a bit more deeply.

 

Oh, please.  Don't insult me like that.

 

In 6E, no.  6E END Reserves don't have the costs I mentioned, tho, so I should clarify:  I was talking 5E.  Should have been apparent, you were bemoaning the 6E END costs?  So I'm pointing out that 5E can do the same.

 

In 5E, VERY often, particularly when I can split the END costs rationally.  The personal END, as noted, helps recover STUN, so that might need to be bought up somewhat.  Fine, I can use STR...that I'm buying up decently anyway because of figured characteristics...off personal END, then *powers* like HA and movement (flight or teleport) can run off the END reserve.  

 

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

One would be that you can take a recovery during your phase for Characteristic END (and STUN as well).

 

This is true, but it's also a part of the point I was making.  The issue with END isn't simply a matter of the cost of END.  It may be *too easy* to take a recovery, and/or you get much too much when you do.  This ties in with the SPD thread going on right now.  

[Gauntlet]

22 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

This is true, but it's also a part of the point I was making.  The issue with END isn't simply a matter of the cost of END.  It may be *too easy* to take a recovery, and/or you get much too much when you do.  This ties in with the SPD thread going on right now.  

 

I guess the issue is that I am not understanding what you are arguing/saying. As for END Reserves, I personally only utilize them based on the Special Effect of the character receiving their END utilizing an outside source, such as a power suit. Normally I do not use them, especially for a character to utilize their own personal powers. In addition, should I need someone to only be able to use a power for a certain number of times, I usually will go with Charges, not END or END Reserve. To put things in perspective, I do believe that END reserves work for a small number of characters, overwhelmingly in most cases it is better to just use standard END.

 

As for why have END Reserves: sometimes it nice to have that oddball option to do something, even if just to give you a choice.

Edited August 29 by Gauntlet

[unclevlad]

CRT was saying that the cost, 1 CP for 5 points of END, made END so cheap that it wasn't worth bothering with.

 

I'm saying that's not the problem in itself...and that in 5E, with an END reserve, it was 1 CP for 10 END.  I can do MORE with that...with, as noted, potentially the issue of taking recoveries.  

 

The issue of END use relates to SPD, to points in attack powers, to movement issues, to build style...do you build to efficient END use or not...to how long you expect combat to last, and to how easy or hard it is to take a mid-turn recovery.  Do you ever consider LTE?  END reserves never suffer from LTE.

 

For me, the only time an END reserve is *off* the table is a build where all the END use is tied to characteristics...STR, running, leaping.  Anything else...spellcasters often power their spells off a "mana pool"...well, any power can sensibly be considered the same.  This is particularly true in an EC, where at least one of the connecting elements can be "runs off the END reserve."

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

CRT was saying that the cost, 1 CP for 5 points of END, made END so cheap that it wasn't worth bothering with.

 

I'm saying that's not the problem in itself...and that in 5E, with an END reserve, it was 1 CP for 10 END.  I can do MORE with that...with, as noted, potentially the issue of taking recoveries.  

 

 

And as you yourself agreed, and Gauntlet pointed out, the Endurance Reserve costs are offset by the awkward use of them and its inherent limitations.  So I don't see how that remotely applies to the current situation.  Gliding is cheaper than flight, does that make cuttting the cost of flight a reasonable approach?

 

If you price END so low that people can buy well more than they'll  need in a fight, same with Recovery, then those two stats have been reduced to irrelevance, they are no longer a limitation or a control on actions.  They don't serve their purpose in the rules any longer.  Surely this is self evident.

[Gauntlet]

I think I kinda understand unclevlad is referring to. Why have and END Reserve cost different than Characteristic END/REC if it just has a few limitations with other advantages. They really should cost the same. END/REC, goes to 0 when unconscious but it also can gain recoveries per Phase, not just post 12. While END Reserves do not go down when unconscious, but they only recover post 12 and you cannot utilize STUN for END with them.

 

Am I even close???

[unclevlad]

27 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Endurance Reserve costs are offset by the awkward use of them and its inherent limitations

 

I strongly avoid any build that insists on blowing a phase to recover as a strategic element.  Thus, done right, the drawback to a 5E END reserve is minimal.  

 

27 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If you price END so low that people can buy well more than they'll  need in a fight, same with Recovery

 

At what SPD, at how many END per phase based on typical power use, how long are you expecting a combat to last?  

 

This is, I think, the fundamental difference.  Most pre-written characters are built on a basis of taking regular mid-turn recoveries and/or fights that don't last.  That, I suspect, influences the build processes...if you read those characters, or think their approach is decent.  I think most of em are terrible...but I don't use the comics tropes.  Getting stunned is a *disaster* to me.  Give the bad guys a chance, and too many of em will try to incapacitate you, if not outright kill you.  You need to be able to last, too...you can't anticipate fights ending in 20 seconds.

 

EDIT:  

Quote

I think I kinda understand unclevlad is referring to. Why have and END Reserve cost different than Characteristic END/REC if it just has a few limitations with other advantages. They really should cost the same. END/REC, goes to 0 when unconscious but it also can gain recoveries per Phase, not just post 12. While END Reserves do not go down when unconscious, but they only recover post 12 and you cannot utilize STUN for END with them.

 

Am I even close???

 

Not what I was addressing, no.  First things first:  you have to separate out 5E and 6E completely, because the cost bases are so massively different.  Characteristic END and REC, past figured stats, in 5E, is VERY expensive, whereas Reserve END and REC are dirt cheap.  In 6E, reserve END and REC are more expensive than characteristic END and REC.

 

What this does is make the END reserve a standout choice *in 5E*...if you plan properly, and balance things well.  No, you don't build ALL your END use out of a reserve...your STUN recovery probably suffers.  And I will grant:  it's more important at higher SPD, where that END per turn becomes massive.  Even a 5 SPD may be a wash...but not if you're burning 7 or 8 END per phase, AND when you abhor mid-turn recoveries philosophically.  At lower SPD, your END recovery and STUN recovery are likely better balanced.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

At what SPD, at how many END per phase based on typical power use, how long are you expecting a combat to last?  

Rather than get into some debate about how long combat lasts or how characters are built, let's just do a simple thought exercise.  Do you believe that you are

 

a) more

or 

b) less 

 

likely to buy enough END to not run out in the average fight, let alone a long fight, if it costs 1 point for 5 END or, say 1 point for 3 END?  When you are building a character and have, say, 20 points to allocate, you could easily buy yourself 110 END.  That's a trivial amount of points to a 400+ character, but it means ... you're not running out of END.

 

At a certain point, if Endurance is too cheap, it becomes irrelevant to the game, because its too easy to buy far more than you'll need.  I believe we have reached that point with the cost of END right now.  Perhaps you do not.  But arguing about how much END you use in a fight or not or how much END Reserve costs is a side issue.

[unclevlad]

11 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

At what SPD, at how many END per phase based on typical power use, how long are you expecting a combat to last?  

Rather than get into some debate about how long combat lasts or how characters are built, let's just do a simple thought exercise.  Do you believe that you are

 

a) more

or 

b) less 

 

likely to buy enough END to not run out in the average fight, let alone a long fight, if it costs 1 point for 5 END or, say 1 point for 3 END?  When you are building a character and have, say, 20 points to allocate, you could easily buy yourself 110 END.  That's a trivial amount of points to a 400+ character, but it means ... you're not running out of END.

 

At a certain point, if Endurance is too cheap, it becomes irrelevant to the game, because its too easy to buy far more than you'll need.  I believe we have reached that point with the cost of END right now.  Perhaps you do not.  But arguing about how much END you use in a fight or not or how much END Reserve costs is a side issue.

 

20 points is trivial?  Wow...that's news to me.  

 

Part of the reason why 6E priced END at 1 point per 5 END is because it'd be extremely expensive to buy the baseline END that characters routinely need.  How much should we have to spend to have 50 END?  Removing figured characteristics already created a significant cost increase;  forcing large expenditure to reach a baseline-hero level on END, REC, and STUN would make things that much worse.  You're ignoring that part.

 

And, no, discussing END reserve costs is not a side issue.  You're saying 20 points...in 6E.  For 20 points in 5E, I can have a 200 END reserve...not 120.  Or, say, 120 END and 8 REC for it.  Or whatever balancing act works for the build.  How does this NOT create the same issue, that I've got more END than I am gonna need?  

 

Last...if you force END to be expensive, then you're just saying "buy Reduced END" especially on your main attack power.  Oh, and pay attention to the breakpoints.  55 STR is *massively* better than 60...when you consider 1/2 END.  I'd be fine with buying 2 CSLs with the strict intent of using them for damage regularly.  55 STR, 1/2 END is 69;  the CSLs would be 6.  That's 75...same as 60 STR, 1/2 END...but now I'm spending 2 END per phase, not 3.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/28/2024 at 5:17 PM, LoneWolf said:

 

 Actually without figured stats both characters pay the exact same amount for STUN END and REC.  It is only with figured stats that different characters pay a different amount for the same stats. Doing away with figured stats also lowered the cost of some of the formerly primary stats.  CON cost 1 point per point instead of 2 and DEX costs 2 points instead of 3.   Neither concept should be rewarded or penalized for sticking to their concept.  But with figured stats the first human torch is penalized compared to the fit human torch.  

 

Exactly. 5e/Figured penalized PCs with low STR and CON.  They still needed the END, REC and STUN, and were forced to pay vastly more points for them. 6e removed that issue so the 13 STR, 18 CON character is not forced to pay more points to have less STR and be more easily Stunned.

 

On 8/28/2024 at 5:33 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yes, but I demonstrated that it has other uses.  So repeating that doesn't really move the discussion along.  If his argument is invalid, then it doesn't matter why he came to that conclusion.  Since Comeliness was primarily a roleplaying and interaction stat, the fact that it has no combat mechanical effect is meaningless.  It is inescapable fact that positive appearance has an effect on interaction and behavior of people aka "pretty privilege" and how people and even creatures react to hideous things. 

 

A COM roll was a great complimentary roll for a lot of interaction skills, and a high or low COM would give role play and interaction hooks: man she's hot!  Holy crap that dude is ugly.  As Bob Greenwade wrote, there are a lot of ways you can and we DID use Comeliness in the game.  It was a useful and classic stat, that is an actual aspect in life.  We're not all reduced to Batman or Woody Allen; presence has its place but is not the sum of interaction.

 

You keep revising the point. Steve Long did not say, nor persuade me, that COM was not and should not be a characteristic because it had no COMBAT mechanics of its own.  It has NO MECHANICS WHATSOEVER of its own. EVERY MECHANIC it has ever had MODIFIED the mechanics of a REAL Characteristic, PRE. PRE is also primarily an interaction stat (role playing is not mechanics; it is playing a character - Complications are the only real mechanic we have for that).  You have provided precisely zero examples of the use of COM outside of modifying interaction skills.

 

My character can be hot or ugly providing in-game benefits (Striking Appearance, for example), in-game drawbacks (Distinctive Features, for example) or no mechanical effects whatsoever.  You do not pay points to be tall, or blonde, or handsome - you pay points for the benefits your character receives for being tall, or blonde, or handsome. "Good looking" is a special effect.  I use Life Support in games. That does not mean Life Support is, or should be, a characteristic. 

 

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

CRT was saying that the cost, 1 CP for 5 points of END, made END so cheap that it wasn't worth bothering with.

 

I'm saying that's not the problem in itself...and that in 5E, with an END reserve, it was 1 CP for 10 END.  I can do MORE with that...with, as noted, potentially the issue of taking recoveries. 

 

Of course, you also don't recover with 3 STUN and have the choice of trying to take a recovery or taking STUN to act if you have an END reserve.  The 6e model is based on the cost of "persistent END" with REC discounted because it is less useful.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If you price END so low that people can buy well more than they'll  need in a fight, same with Recovery, then those two stats have been reduced to irrelevance, they are no longer a limitation or a control on actions.  They don't serve their purpose in the rules any longer.  Surely this is self evident.

 

I have not seen this become an issue in any 6e game.  Let's consider 5e.  If I don't want to be gasping for breath, I build a character with manageable END. If I have a 5 SPD, have a 12 AP attack and a 30" move, with defenses that cost no END, I expect to attack pretty much every phase, and likely move in most of them.  Let's start with 50 END from 25 CON and 9 REC from CON and 18 STR.  I am probably spending 40 END or so a turn.  Maybe I buy 80 END (+15 points) and 15 REC (+12 points). That will at least get me into the third turn.  Or maybe I spend 15 points to make my 60 AP attack half END.  Now I only spend 24 or so END a turn.  I'll last a bit longer then buying up REC and END, and I have 12 points to spend elsewhere.

 

At 6e prices, buying up END and REC is actually viable as an alternative to reduced END.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You have provided precisely zero examples of the use of COM outside of modifying interaction skills.

 

Which would be a mechanic, yes?  Also, it can be used to see if someone finds you attractive and thus would like to talk to you (COM roll).  I am sure, if you tried, or read the article Bob Greenwade wrote, you would discover more possibilities rather than simply rejecting them.

 

Quote

20 points is trivial?  Wow...that's news to me.

 

That's a 4d6 blast.  You have 400+ points to build a character with in 6th edition, if you think 20 points is a significant portion of that, I don't know what to say.

[Stanley Teriaca]

The only thing which comes to mind is "Mental Powers Based On COM", but until 6ed and the Advance Player's Guide series any of that beyond "Mental Powers Based On CON" wasn't a thing.

 

I think buying a VVP and "Mental Powers Based On STR" would be an interesting Flex Mentallo build myself, but we are getting slightly off topic...

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:26 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Which would be a mechanic, yes?

 

Exactly as Steve Long said, it would be a mechanic that serves only to modify an existing mechanic based on PRE.  The baseline test applied was that a characteristic should have its own unique mechanics, not modify a different mechanic. If we accept that, because COM had mechanics that provided bonuses or penalties to PRE-based mechanics, combat skill levels should have been a characteristic as they modified DEX-based (pre 6e) OCV and DCV.

 

On 8/29/2024 at 11:26 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Also, it can be used to see if someone finds you attractive and thus would like to talk to you (COM roll).

 

What baseline "maybe someone would like to talk to you" roll are we modifying with COM?  What prevents it being modified based on Striking Appearance, an Appearance-based complication or a special effect of an appearance with no mechanics (he just happens to like blondes, or she is shy around attractive men)?

 

On 8/29/2024 at 11:26 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I am sure, if you tried, or read the article Bob Greenwade wrote, you would discover more possibilities rather than simply rejecting them.

 

I have read that article, although it has been a while. I also recall it being raised in the pre-6e discussions of COM, and supporting the assertion that there were not even SUGGESTED mechanics for COM that did anything other than modify a mechanic already governed by a different characteristic. Most were interaction.  As I recall, he also suggested initiative for characters of equal DEX go to the highest COM, which would also modify a DEX-based mechanic and could be simulated with a single point of limited Lightning Reflexes. Go ahead and show my ignorance by citing any RAW or suggested mechanic for COM that did something unique unto itself, and did not modify a mechanic based on a different characteristic.

 

I am sure we could work hard and make one up. I am equally confident that it could be simulated in some other manner in 6e.

 

On 8/29/2024 at 11:26 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

That's a 4d6 blast.  You have 400+ points to build a character with in 6th edition, if you think 20 points is a significant portion of that, I don't know what to say.

 

It's also the difference between a 10d6 Blast and a 14d6 Blast.  Or it's +20 PD and +20 ED.  Maybe it's +15/+15 of which 10 is Resistant.  It could be +2 SPD, perhaps moving the character from a 5 to a 7, or +4 DCV.  None of those seem insignificant to me.  It could also be used to eliminate the END cost on the first 8 DCs of my main attack, linking back to the cost of END.  A 5 SPD character paying 4 END for a 12d6 Bast or 0 END to fire off a Multiple Attack against numerous agents or  a Stunned target may find the benefits of those 20 points far from trivial.

[Ninja-Bear]

@Christopher R Taylor, I get where going with the 20pts  out of 400 pts.👍

[Hugh Neilson]

Perhaps the better question, @Christopher R Taylor, is the percentage of character points that you think should be spent on END management. I find few players want a character who is gasping for breath a turn into combat. Making END a major resource management constraint is not the objective for many players or GMs.