LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

[JmOz]

Ok,

 

saw something in the CU thread that looks like the start of a classic argument on these boards, so I thought as a pressure vent I would start this thread, so those who wanted to engange in this argument can do so here, and those who wanted to ignore it could.

 

For those not familar, here is the bases of the arguments

 

Super heroes are super, they constantly do things that normals could not, even without there powers (Example Green Lantern Raynor can take out a group of marines without his ring)

 

Super heroes should be normal humans without there powers

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

That does not read right to me. Perhaps it needs to be rephrased?

 

Or is it just me?

 

QM

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

saw something in the CU thread that looks like the start of a classic argument on these boards, so I thought as a pressure vent I would start this thread, so those who wanted to engange in this argument can do so here, and those who wanted to ignore it could.

 

For those not familar, here is the bases of the arguments

 

Super heroes are super, they constantly do things that normals could not, even without there powers (Example Green Lantern Raynor can take out a group of marines without his ring)

 

Super heroes should be normal humans without there powers

 

There's a middle point here, however. Supers can be better than the average human without haveing characteristics above 20. If the average human has a DEX of 8, for example, and a highly trained human has a DEX of 13, is it really essential to set the DEX of a Super at 23, and consider anything lower to be an unusually clumsy Super (but likely still a potential Olympic gymnast)? Part of the question comes down to "what is the range for normal humans", and the rest comes down to "how much more does the Super need to be above the human norm".

 

If we assume that the Super has stats equal to those marines, and give him, say, four to six combat skill levels (purchased with xp, and justified by the fact that he sees more combat in a single story arc than many military personnel will see in a lifetime), shouldn't he now be able to clean up a group of marines without having all his characteristics in the 23 - 30 level? With 4 levels on DCV, and otherwise equal stats, Kyle will hit 62.5% of the time (11-), and will only get hit 16.2% of the time (7-). I'd say that alone gives him a significant advantage. Toss another two levels in to give Kyle an extra DC, and he should have little difficulty in a straight up fight against four marines.

 

Of course, if we decide that marines start at 20 in all characteristics and go up from there, Kyle (and every other Super, and all those agents) need to be a lot tougher to compete - but that's because we made the world around them more Super.

[Matt Holck]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I never let go of 10 as a standard for normals

[DusterBoy]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I think it's pushing it for a normal to have more than one or two stats of 15 or above, expecially if there's no good reason - say in an elite military unit, an Olympic athlete, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, et cetera. If I was building a competant normal character, I'd use the stats on p224 of FRED as a guide.

[Matt Holck]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I usually figured super trained paragons paid double for statts beyond normal characteristic maxima

[torchwolf]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

Personally, I think the issue is partly what kind of supers this applies to.

 

In a "semi-realistic" campaign, you could argue that supers are merely human beings with powers, and occasionally heightened Characteristics stemming from their powers; i.e., mutants, altered humans beings, etc.

In this case, any "mutation-enhanced" Characteristics could be bought as Powers for the part that comes from that enhancement. This is somewhat easier to envision in 6E than in earlier editions - while it works the same, side benefits from the resulting Figured Characteristics become slightly less obvious in effects.

 

The same reasoning would not necessarily apply to aliens, living beings made up of elements, supernatural beings, etc. Would a vampire have increased DEX from being undead? Probably not, but most vampires are envisioned as having a much higher DEX after their "rebirth".

 

So, what part of a Characteristic is inherent to a certain character, before powers (conceptually, as opposed to Powers as defined in the system) are applied? If that question is answered, it becomes clearer what being "super" constitutes in a particular campaign.

 

Recently I made a character in 5th Edition - a mutant with some minor cosmic powers; three sources of physical Characteristic values. Therefore, I tinkered with buying several of the physical Characteristics 3 ways:

1) normal human physical capabilities (as the character would have looked without mutant powers enhancing physical attributes)

2) mutated enhanced physical capabilities (the Characteristic increases resulting from having mutant powers)

3) cosmically enhanced physical capabilities (increases resulting from having Characteristics boosted by cosmic energy)

As it turns out, it changes nothing in the costs, but different circumstances definitely have clearly different effects on the character's abilities, and that is clearly defined in advance as well, providing for consistency.

 

The same could of course be done even for a Martial Artist character: Super-Ninja Man has STR, DEX, CON and several other Characteristics raised because of the extremely effective (borderline-mystical) techniques that were learned as part of the process of training up to superhuman levels.

Yes, maybe a bit meta-gamey, but that is for the purpose of keeping with defining what is "super" and what is not. A normal human training up to superhuman levels (assuming that's possible in the campaign) has by definition become superhuman in capabilities. That does not in itself constitute superpowers any more than having a gun does, but is an added ability to a character. How inherent it is would be up to the campaign, but dividing up abilities in this way might clarify the distinction between human and superhuman.

 

So what point is there to define this? In the campaign, a character's cosmic powers or mutant powers could temporarily be removed or reduced; a martial artist's abilities could be decrease or rendered ineffective against his particular nemesis (the "special style opponent" theme that sometimes occur).

 

 

I realize that none of this doesn't answer the question as stated, but I wonder if the question itself should be rephrased?

 

Do you view everything on a superhuman being's character sheet as being superhuman, or should it be subdivided?

 

Personally I'm inclining towards the latter (even though I've not really attempted being consistent in this approach until 6E made it both simpler and less punitive).

 

 

As for "normals", in some 4th edition products the average Characteristics were defined as higher (9-12 with average of 10 for healthy adults and 8 for general population), while 5ER defines the general population as 6-8 and 6E brings it down slightly to 5-8. This of course also means that an average joe actually would have a Char Roll (and PER Roll) of 10- on average; slightly worse than the sample average characters (though of course such low values would make the general population total pushovers in most campaigns). I think the "lowest human" values needs to be taken into account as well as the "highest human" values for these purposes, if nothing else to clarify that PCs are indeed heroic just by having 10s.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

In the more recent Fifth Edition supers games I ran, I often applied a common Physical Limitation to all "non-super" NPCs which I call Mere Mortal. This reflects a qualitative difference between them and the supers; essentially they're heroic-level characters in a superheroic world, using the heroic rules and restrictions from the rulebook, plus one or two of my own devising.

 

For example, Mere Mortals pay 1 END per 5 points of STR used, rather than 1 per 10; they use the heroic rules for Pushing their STR or any other ability, if I allow them to Push at all; they die when brought to 0 BODY; their Attacks, personal or by weapon, do Knockdown rather than Knockback; they have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default, which also effects how many points Adjustment Powers can raise their Characteristics above that maximum.

 

One can of course choose which rules to use for one's own campaign, but the purpose of Mere Mortal is to reinforce the sense that supers are innately superior, even in areas where their stats are comparable to normal people's. This is in line with the implicit philosophy of HERO System's character design that "heroes" are a cut above what most people can aspire to.

[kahuna's bro]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

a super-hero with out his powers shuldn't atuomaticaly be considered feeble,right

[lemming]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

This post is more stream of thought, than well presented.

 

I played in a FH game where instead of STR doubling lift every 5 STR, it doubled every 10 STR. It widened the "normal" range which is something I liked.

 

Under 6e rules, I might do the same.

I did note when I converted my characters to 6e, I let CVs drop and some stats wound up lower. I also thought of which characters were inherently more OCV or DCV oriented.

 

My uber brick, Scales is completely defense oriented. He has an 8 Dex, always has. (over 900 xp, and he was missed just 18 times.) With him, I bought down his DCV under 6e.

 

I like CVs to have a spread normally of around eight. Means average rolls to hit are 7-15.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

In the more recent Fifth Edition supers games I ran' date=' I often applied a common Physical Limitation to all "non-super" NPCs which I call [b']Mere Mortal[/b]. This reflects a qualitative difference between them and the supers; essentially they're heroic-level characters in a superheroic world, using the heroic rules and restrictions from the rulebook, plus one or two of my own devising.

 

For example, Mere Mortals pay 1 END per 5 points of STR used, rather than 1 per 10; they use the heroic rules for Pushing their STR or any other ability, if I allow them to Push at all; they die when brought to 0 BODY; their Attacks, personal or by weapon, do Knockdown rather than Knockback; they have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default, which also effects how many points Adjustment Powers can raise their Characteristics above that maximum.

 

One can of course choose which rules to use for one's own campaign, but the purpose of Mere Mortal is to reinforce the sense that supers are innately superior, even in areas where their stats are comparable to normal people's. This is in line with the implicit philosophy of HERO System's character design that "heroes" are a cut above what most people can aspire to.

 

Two questions: First, how much did mere mortal cost and was it a physical limitation? Second, how did it go?

[assault]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

My approach: most superheroes (in my settings) are more like the Golden Age Atom, Sandman or Air Wave than Superman.

 

They'll usually have a 5 SPD, but otherwise typically conform to NCM.

 

I don't allow NCM as a Disadvantage.

 

Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, John Stewart or Alan Scott take out marines because they are heroes. Kyle Raynor doesn't, because he doesn't exist.

 

Admittedly, I don't stat "marines" up as anything special - basically just as generic soldiers. I'm fairly stingy even with elite troops, except for individual personalities.

[Rapier]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I imagine that there is, and I'm guilty, or market qualifier fudging.

 

I've got a guy that is super-strong. Is he super-dexterous? No. But (on 5E-) giving a hero a 10 DEX meant a 3 OCV/DCV which meant he would ALWAYS get hit and NEVER hit anything. So we bumped it to make him effective. Then we glossed over it under the patina of 'superhero' and called it a day.

 

Now without Figureds I fully expect to begin to see characters with more normalised stats.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

a super-hero with out his powers shuldn't atuomaticaly be considered feeble' date='right[/quote']

 

I don't think so. But I also don't think a super-hero without his powers should be expected to have stats well above the human norm either. The X-Men are a good example, especially IIRC #149 - 150 of the original series where their powers were suppressed. Cyclops at one point took an inventory of what they still had going for them, and as I recall included the following:

 

- Storm still had her skills from her thief days in Cairo

- Nightcrawler still had his tail (presumably Inherent due to his physical form), agility and acrobatic abilities

- Colossus was still strong, even without his armor up abilities (so his player was bright enough not to put everything OIHID...)

- Cyclops retained his strategic skills

- Kitty was still intelligent and possessed her computer skills

- Wolverine retained his claws and adamantium-laced bones, of course

 

So, ignoring Wolvie's non-mutant powers, and Nightcrawler's tail, what did they have? A smattering of stats above normal human (how far above being open to debate), a number of skills, and likely some combat levels given their years of experience.

 

I've got a guy that is super-strong. Is he super-dexterous? No. But (on 5E-) giving a hero a 10 DEX meant a 3 OCV/DCV which meant he would ALWAYS get hit and NEVER hit anything. So we bumped it to make him effective. Then we glossed over it under the patina of 'superhero' and called it a day.

 

Exactly. Of course, had 1e set the "slow Super" bar at 8-10 DEX, "typical" at 11 - 15, "fast" at 18 -20, and "noted for his agility" at 21+, we could have had Bricks with normal, or even sub-normal, human DEX and they would be competetive in the CV realm. Just like we could set CV's much lower than the published products historically have. Would it be inconsistent with the source material? Well, the characters should be superior to normals, probably on an "elite combat training" level. But then, when we see crossover arcs featuring homages to classic fantasy or wild west characters, they seem to have enough, or more than enough, CV to compete with the Supers on that front. Conan can hold his own against Captain America. So maybe Fantasy Hero characters' CV and DEX levels should be in the "at or above" typical Supers level (with Conan and the like being so experienced he's actually competetive with high CV supers).

 

Now without Figureds I fully expect to begin to see characters with more normalised stats.

 

As did I, but 6e material to date has not met those expectations.

[Matt Holck]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

if a character wants to have above average statts,

it as the points to pay for that.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

Two questions: First' date=' how much did mere mortal cost and was it a physical limitation? Second, how did it go?[/quote']

 

I do define it as a Physical Limitation, and if I bothered to cost it (since PCs by definition couldn't take it) I'd probably make it 20 points (Frequently, Fully) -- individual elements of it wouldn't be Fully impairing, but in my games it subsumes many elements. If you make fewer distinctions between normals and supers, the level of Impairment and perhaps Frequency should be reduced.

 

There've been a number of situations where using this really enhanced the sense of "superness" for the players. For example, when Mere Mortals are subject to "mook rules," or are more Vulnerable to "super" attacks, PCs can wade through them like the mightiest of comic-book heroes. OTOH supervillains threatening innocent bystanders becomes a much more serious consideration for the heroes, when they're aware that fragile normals could instantly die.

 

I sometimes use the old "Self-Inflicted Damage" rule which causes someone to take damage when they strike hard surfaces with bare flesh. I remember one brick-playing member of my group grinning when a really annoying Mere Mortal NPC took a swing at him and nearly broke his hand.

 

When a super and a Mere Mortal have the same DEX and the same Action Phase, the super always acts first.

 

Of course you can just improvise a lot of these effects, but if you feel more comfortable accounting for these things mechanically this is a pretty versatile Disad/Complication.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I don't have anything in particular to contribute to the discussion. I just stopped by to shake my fist and curse JmOz for the thread title that earwormed me with that damn song again after I'd finally gotten it out of my head by not seeing a Valentine's Day trailer in the last 24 hours.

 

Of course you know, this means war!

 

 

[casualplayer]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

In the more recent Fifth Edition supers games I ran' date=' I often applied a common Physical Limitation to all "non-super" NPCs which I call [b']Mere Mortal[/b]. This reflects a qualitative difference between them and the supers; essentially they're heroic-level characters in a superheroic world, using the heroic rules and restrictions from the rulebook, plus one or two of my own devising.

 

For example, Mere Mortals pay 1 END per 5 points of STR used, rather than 1 per 10; they use the heroic rules for Pushing their STR or any other ability, if I allow them to Push at all; they die when brought to 0 BODY; their Attacks, personal or by weapon, do Knockdown rather than Knockback; they have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default, which also effects how many points Adjustment Powers can raise their Characteristics above that maximum.

 

One can of course choose which rules to use for one's own campaign, but the purpose of Mere Mortal is to reinforce the sense that supers are innately superior, even in areas where their stats are comparable to normal people's. This is in line with the implicit philosophy of HERO System's character design that "heroes" are a cut above what most people can aspire to.

 

It also lets your players take Damage Reduction versus Mere Mortals to feel super-Super.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

It also lets your players take Damage Reduction versus Mere Mortals to feel super-Super.

 

Or, just reduce the Damage that supers take from "non-super" attacks. In my own games this usually means Half Damage from barehanded attacks by Mere Mortals; or from weapons which have the Real Weapon Limitation.

[casualplayer]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

Or that.

 

IMO, Champions, and HERO System, works best when you define the human mean and deviate from there. If you would describe your character's agility as good then you are +1-3 above the mean, great is 4-6, exceptional 7-9, etc. It lets you have your super-agents guest star without being completely outclassed, or even a liability. It makes it so Legolas and Booster Gold don't have the same stats in some areas. It makes origins a little more plausible as a normal person can stumble into his radiation accident and become super without having to be a Olympic-level gymnast and track star "normal" before coming into powers to explain how my mystically imbued self has a DEX of 23.

 

DEX was always the real sticking point because all of the other stats could somewhat be explained and justified. Why the blue blazes would stumbling across a Crown of Krim make me more agile? Well, because if I didn't take advantage of the slaved CV benefits of hefty DEX then I would be at a serious disadvantage to all those who did.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

if a character wants to have above average statts,

it as the points to pay for that.

 

The isue is defining "above average stats". If I go back to 5er (wince I have ot handy), p 41 sets out some characteristic benchmarks. I want my character to be superpowered, but his caracteristics aren't superhuman, or even legendary. I look at the benchmark table and decide:

 

- he shouldn't be as strong as an o0lympic weightlifter (Competent), but Skilled/Typical Weightlifter seems OK. He should be Competent in DEX (an elite soldier, better than a cop or typical soldier). He's healthy as a horse, so that's also Competent CON. And he's more charismatic than the average person, but not as charismatic as Julius Caeser or a Vampire, so Skilled. Let's see his stats:

 

STR 13 [top of the range]

DEX 18 [High end of the range]

CON 20 [Top of range]

PRE 13 [Top of range]

 

Everything else is "average", so he takes a 10, maybe an 11 to be just into "skilled".

 

Now, let's toss that character into a typical Champions campaign, and see how "skilled" or "competent" he looks when facing off against opponents from CKC. "Not very" would be my expectation. He's likely to be the slowest Super in the group, despite believing he was "competent". His CON falls just short of "legendary", yet will also likely be the lowest on the team. His PRE will likely leave him hesitating, at least, against every PRE attack made against him.

 

Had the playetr known the real campaign benchmarks, he would have spent more points. A "legendary" characteristic should stand out, not be lost in the crowd. In most Supers games, a 23 or 26 DEX is just one of many, hardly a standout "legendary" attribute. 6e had the chance to fix this, especially with DEX, by dropping characters for whom agility is not part of their power suite down into the "human" range. Still "skilled" or "competent" (sayt 13 or 18), so better than Joe Average, but not converting the "legendary" description into an "everySuper" level of attributes. Captain America and Batman should have Legendary DEX. The Thing and Starman should not need Legendary DEX to compete.

 

Similar to Casualplayer's post, my character's actual level of ability is not dependent on how many points I spent as much as it is dependent on how he deviates from the typical character in the game.

[Matt Holck]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

absolutely

and any reasonable super would die quickly or at least be a lot more bruised if character defenses were normal or even legendary

[Rapier]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

As did I' date=' but 6e material to date has not met those expectations.[/quote']

 

I think (or maybe hope) that things are still just too early. I mean 6E has only been around for 6 months. Even I find myself pushing for the breakpoints and bumping stats, only to go 'oh yeah' and change them. It's surprisingly difficult to not have to constantly double check and make the adjustment.

[Matt Holck]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I get the feeling 15d6 is the new damage class

[Tasha]

Re: LETS DO IT AGAIN: Arguing over characteristics

 

I think that it comes down to the SubGenre of Supers you enjoy playing.

 

I enjoy playing/running Bronze Age Supers that are Super. Not as powerful as DC Universe characters, but better than any "normal". What does this means is that I like Super's stats to be on average than an "Elite" human (Defined as Dex 18 Spd 4). I like the idea that most supers are that much better than a "normal" human. I am confortable with running with this powerlevel and most of the players seem to get it as well. Also, since most of the Published Champions materials are written up in this powerlevel, I don't have to modify stuff if I don't want to.

 

The Power levels in Champions came from the designers wanting to emulate the comics of the day and their youth. Where the Heroes were always better/faster etc than the regular people. That even the slowest bricks were faster than a police officer or Special forces folk. So the dex and spd were set to emulate this. It was later influenced by Other groups outside of the core who liked to play even more powerful characters, but not to the ridiculous extremes that group had (ie avg 33dex 6-7spd).

 

Now I do realize that there are campaigns that are based on newer Super Heroic Mythology. Where the Supers are much closer to humanity in how fast they are. I don't care to run/play in these games, but they do exist. This Subgenre was originally detailed in the original Dark Champions (not the 5e DC that is much different).

 

So honestly I am glad that Champions 6E is keeping to the Traditional power levels. It means that it is much easier to convert 5e characters to fit into the new rules.

 

So those who want it can have their super powered normals (ie Fantasy Hero with superpowers). While I and others will play Supers who have super stats and super powers. Neither of us are right, but making the Core Champions product into FH-Supers would be a huge mistake.