Surely You're Joking, Mr Long.

[Starlight]

:) (with apologies to Richard Feynman)

There's a thread for commenting on the cool ideas in sixth edition, which is sure to grow with time. So I figured we ought to have a matching thread for commenting on the sixth edition ideas that seem, shall we say, somewhat less than optimum at first sight. This thread isn't really the place for the big issues that are sure to get full attention by forum regulars. However there sure to be, in a set of rules of this size and complexity, a number of minor items that will induce a 'you're kidding, right?' reaction when reading them.

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

My own pet peeve for 6e would initially be pricing DEX at 2 points, along with doubling the cost of DEX skill levels. DEX was the big bargain in 5e, and I'm glad to see that change, but it's now overpriced when all it provides is an improvement to skill rolls and combat order.

Lots of other threads to discuss that on, though.

[Chris Goodwin]

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

Allow me to refer the reader to 6E1 p. 9, specifically the part that begins most of the way down the first column and continues in the second.

[bigbywolfe]

Wait a minute. COMeliness has been removed from the Characteristics? What was Mr. Long thinking?! It’s madness I tell you! MADNESS!!!





*Bigbywolfe runs away and hides…*

[Lucius]

:) (with apologies to Richard Feynman)

There's a thread for commenting on the cool ideas in sixth edition, which is sure to grow with time. So I figured we ought to have a matching thread for commenting on the sixth edition ideas that seem, shall we say, somewhat less than optimum at first sight. This thread isn't really the place for the big issues that are sure to get full attention by forum regulars. However there sure to be, in a set of rules of this size and complexity, a number of minor items that will induce a 'you're kidding, right?' reaction when reading them.

So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks."

Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.

If that's the worst problem it has, it will be a miracle.

Lucius Alexander

Familiarity, Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[prestidigitator]

Is Barrier Instant or isn't it? Should we call it Persistent instead? Is it just a wall after all, or does it have some fundamental connection to the character who created it? Can we englobe someone with a wall that is anchored?! Grrrrrrr!

[Michael Hopcroft]

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley. :)

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

[Chris Goodwin]

Is Barrier Instant or isn't it? Should we call it Persistent instead? Is it just a wall after all, or does it have some fundamental connection to the character who created it? Can we englobe someone with a wall that is anchored?! Grrrrrrr!

It's Instant, in the same way that Entangle has always been Instant. It can be purchased "Costs END To Maintain" which means that you spend END every Phase or it goes away.

[Susano]

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley. :)

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

Considering that HERO wants to emulate cinematic action and there's nothing stopping me from playing a pastiche of James Bond, I don't see why I can't fire a .44 mangum while hanging off of a cliff.

[Vondy]

He's not joking. And stop calling him Shirley. :)

Just the idea of firing a .44 magnum while hanging off a cliff is sort of mind-boggling. james Bond might be able to pull it off, but that doesn't mean your character can.

It doesn't mean he can't, either. Maybe my character wears a "James Bond's a Loser" T-Shirt. Its just a question of what's appropriate for the genre/game in question.

[Kdansky]

Summon: The +1/4 Advantage to give you +2 EGO roll bonus is made pointless by the fact that such an advantage would increase AP, which in turn gives you a malus on your EGO roll. In the end, it is not worth it BY FAR. Also, having an EGOvsEGO contest results in lunacy elsewhere:

Golem of Awesome Combatprowess: 300 CP, EGO 5. (305 CP in useful things)
Imp of Annoying Dickery: 50 CP, EGO 60. (0 CP in anything else)

The second one is MUCH harder to control, even though it's certainly a lot less powerful.

I pointed this out here and again in the 6th Discussion. Kinda lame that it got ignored, while being so obvious.

[Susano]

Summon: The +1/4 Advantage to give you +2 EGO roll bonus is made pointless by the fact that such an advantage would increase AP, which in turn gives you a malus on your EGO roll. In the end, it is not worth it BY FAR. Also, having an EGOvsEGO contest results in lunacy elsewhere:

Golem of Awesome Combatprowess: 300 CP, EGO 5. (305 CP in useful things)
Imp of Annoying Dickery: 50 CP, EGO 60. (0 CP in anything else)

The second one is MUCH harder to control, even though it's certainly a lot less powerful.

Yes, but that is an example of metagaming, not trying to building things that might fit the setting. You can do that with pretty much anything, not just summoned creatures.

[Kdansky]

Yes, but that is an example of metagaming, not trying to building things that might fit the setting. You can do that with pretty much anything, not just summoned creatures.

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

[Susano]

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.

Okay, look at it this way -- I could build a pistol that does 5d6 RKA and has an infinite number of shots. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should. As for the imp, I haven't read that far in 6E but I recall 5E mentioning you could bargain with the summoned creature as opposed to pure EGO versus EGO rolls. So instead of the GM building a 60 EGO imp, and saying "hah, hah, you're screwed" he could build an imp and have the PC bargain or bribe the imp to get something done.

[tesuji]

also keep in kind these numbers have some actual meaning.

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

on the other hand when the willful imp did decide to act on your behalf his decision making would be swift and well decisive.

EGO in summoned beings is not just a detriment, or should not be played as such by a Gm playing "fair" since he is requiring the character pony up points to get the higher ego.

if in your game ego for summons is soley a negative trait, or mostly a negative trait, you should consider not counting it as positive points, p ossibly even costingit as "complications".

[mkultra]

So summoning Arrogant Pricks should always be a lot harder than summoning Dinosaurs? That's the system imposing genre on me right there.
On some RPG Forums, it's not at all hard to summon an Arrogant Prick.

[Kdansky]

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.
That of course is true, but do you think EGO is the relevant stat on anything that can be summoned? 20 EGO or 10 EGO makes the same difference (+2 EGO roll) as +100 total points of the summoned entity. That's 10 times as much. Surely that is not an adequate measure of power. This has nothing to do with metagaming or Roleplay examples, but is a purely technical comparison.


Okay, look at it this way -- I could build a pistol that does 5d6 RKA and has an infinite number of shots. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should
Sure you can. What does this have to do with low EGO entities being too easy to summon, and high EGO entities being too hard to do so for the same costs of the summon spell?


And that does not solve the trouble of Weak Willed:
+1/4 gives me +2 on EGO roll (well, -2 to the entity, but the difference is minor), which would cost 10 cp on a 40 cp base power, which in turn gives me -1 EGO. At 80 base, I only pay 20 extra for nothing, and at 120 base, I pay 30 extra to recieve -1 to my EGO. Hardly useful.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



That of course is true, but do you think EGO is the relevant stat on anything that can be summoned? 20 EGO or 10 EGO makes the same difference (+2 EGO roll) as +100 total points of the summoned entity. That's 10 times as much. Surely that is not an adequate measure of power. This has nothing to do with metagaming or Roleplay examples, but is a purely technical comparison.

I dont think anything is THE anything. They have defined ego as the default. if your sfx require some other stats be used, you can apply lim or adv if necessary. EGo however is the default the baseline. Nothing more.



Sure you can. What does this have to do with low EGO entities being too easy to summon, and high EGO entities being too hard to do so for the same costs of the summon spell?

a low ego high power summon IS a trade off vs a lower power but high ego summon. The former has more crunch but requires more work from you and rarely gives you any extras. The latter is more reliable when acting in your stead and requires less effort but is also more prone to do his own thing. The former you just order. the second you work with.

If in your game you dont feel you as gm can play off these differences adequately, then you should feel free to change the mechanics to match more accurately how you will play it.

[Kdansky]

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

[Susano]

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

Okay, I can see this discussion is going nowhere. I'm done here, good bye.

[tesuji]

I get insulted left and right if I point out a mathematical flaw. Seems mkultra was right.

i am not sure where you are being insulted.

[Sean Waters]

Considering that HERO wants to emulate cinematic action and there's nothing stopping me from playing a pastiche of James Bond, I don't see why I can't fire a .44 mangum while hanging off of a cliff.

Fire the most powerful handgun in the world while hanging off a cliff any you'll be playing a James Bond pasty.

**Ba-boom cha...**

[Sean Waters]

I say, I say, I say...Steve Long summons a talking white horse to a bar and says, "They've got a drink here named after you"

"What?", says the horse, "George?"

A talking bear says to George, "Why the long....................face?"

George responds, "Why the big pause?"

The bear says, "I've..................always had them."

Ay thenk yew!

[Kdansky]

i am not sure where you are being insulted.


If in your game you dont feel you as gm can play off these differences adequately

Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

[Hugh Neilson]

also keep in kind these numbers have some actual meaning.

As gm a golem with low ego would have extremely little ability to make choices, so whenever anything occurs that requires deciwsionmaking, anything beyond "doing exactly what you sai and no more" the golem would be rather hindered.

on the other hand when the willful imp did decide to act on your behalf his decision making would be swift and well decisive.

EGO in summoned beings is not just a detriment, or should not be played as such by a Gm playing "fair" since he is requiring the character pony up points to get the higher ego.

if in your game ego for summons is soley a negative trait, or mostly a negative trait, you should consider not counting it as positive points, possibly even costing it as "complications".

This is an excellent point. If I tried to define my Follower as having the Psychological Complication of "Obedient to Me", the GM would and should disallow it, or at least not reduce the cost of the Follower as a consequence. Similarly, if the cost of Summoning the creature is increased due to a higher EGO, this should act in the Summoner's favour, not to his detriment. If it is to be detrimental, then it should reduce, not increase, the cost of the Summon.

To me, at least, the corollary to "a limitation that does not limit is worth no points" is "if it costs points, it must benefit the character".


On some RPG Forums, it's not at all hard to summon an Arrogant Prick.

Summon is easy. Try Controlling one, which is what the Ego roll represents.

[Sean Waters]

Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

Try gum instead of boiled sweets, then you can chew as a GM.

**Ba-da ba-da-ba ba-da-da**

[tesuji]

Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

huh?

man you must have quite an ego.

I have gmed for a long time and you know what, there are lots of cases where i know as gm i cannot in my game adequately reflect this or that mechanic, and so i adjust the mechanics to suit the game.

Most often it is an issue of setting and genre - the elements involved dont fit mechanically with what we will be trying to emulate. So we adjust the mechanics to suit.

For example - in a fantasy game summons will often be intelligent free willed individuals and so as gm i would often think i could adequately reflect the differences between high and low ego summonees. However in a tech game where the summon power most often might be used for computers or robots, then i would not really expect a lot of ego based issues to play a role. So it should not be surprising that i use slightly different mechanics.

Another issue might be the desires and playstyles.

neither of these, none of these, say one whit about your quality as a gm.

[Sean Waters]

A Steve Long goes to the doctors and asks why he's been feeling ill. The doctor examines him and replies "I'm sorry to tell you, you've got the disease known as Yellow 24."

"What's that?” Steve asks.

"It means your internal organs have started turning yellow - you've got 24 hours to live".

Steve goes home and tells his wife the bad news. His wife says "Well, will you come to bingo with me tonight then? Otherwise you'll never be able to."

Steve agrees so he and his wife go to the bingo. He finds that he's won the one-line and £10. He begins to think this isn't such a bad day after all. Twenty minutes later, he's won the full house and £150. He enters the lucky draw, worth £500, and wins that too. The bingo caller calls him up on stage.

He says "I don't believe it, mate. You've won three competitions in a total of £660 in one night. You must be the luckiest man on the earth!"

Steve says "Well, no, I'm not. I've got Yellow 24."

The bingo caller looks down at the piece of paper he's holding and starts clapping. "I don't believe it; he's won the raffle as well!"

[Vondy]

؟

[Sean Waters]

؟

'Surely you're Joking, Mr Long?'










What?

[Susano]

Yes, I suck as a GM, that's my problem!

Okay, I'm back.

I never said you couldn't GM. I was trying to offer counter-points to your argument about the math being wrong. I also admitted to not having gotten as far as Summon in 6E, but instead offered observations based on 5E, Summon, and your 60 EGO Imp example. I never said anything about you personally, your GMing skills, or your style of play.

[Ice9]

While a 5-EGO golem might have it's own disadvantages, a 10 EGO, 20 INT creature will be smarter than most humans and fully able to work without your micromanagement. Going from that to 30 EGO is going to make the summon a lot more difficult for not that much benefit - it won't even have increased DMCV.

[Bloodstone]

The biggest problem with Summon in 6E is that it's still not Duplication. And Duplication isn't Summon.

Oh well, maybe by the time 7E rolls around ;)

[Jhamin]

The biggest problem with Summon in 6E is that it's still not Duplication. And Duplication isn't Summon.

Oh well, maybe by the time 7E rolls around ;)

May I ask what you mean by that?

[CrosshairCollie]

" ... and don't call me Shirley."

[JmOz]

May I ask what you mean by that?

not to speak for him, but I have always felt that the two powers were similar enough to be rolled into one, espesialy if you allow the Player to control the summons if they are loyal enough

[Bloodstone]

not to speak for him, but I have always felt that the two powers were similar enough to be rolled into one, espesialy if you allow the Player to control the summons if they are loyal enough

Pretty much this. They serve a near identical function. The mechanical differences should be handled by limitations/advantages to a single base power.

[rjcurrie]

Pretty much this. They serve a near identical function. The mechanical differences should be handled by limitations/advantages to a single base power.

I think you'd need so many exceptions to represent the two concepts as one power that it is not worth it. Starting with, but not limited to the fact that Summon brings GM-controlled characters with limited free will into play and Duplication brings player-controlled characters with complete free will into into play.

[Bloodstone]

Starting with, but not limited to the fact that Summon brings GM-controlled characters with limited free will into play and Duplication brings player-controlled characters with complete free will into into play.

I feel the default setting of bringing more critters into a battle/scenario is that they do what you want them to. The whole Ego roll, levels of loyalty and such is, IMO, a clear example of a limitation on the base power.

Similarly, bring in critters that are exactly like me and under my control would thus be easy to do, thus removing many of the complexities of Duplication. Why is it ok to be able to summon 64 demons with a single activation of a power, but if I want to make multiple duplicates I suddenly need a hefty advantage?

And I shouldn't have to pay for altered duplicates if my dupe/summon has slightly or radically different abilites. That's just silly.

When dupes/summons die, the default setting is I can just summon more. It's a limitation that death is permanent for some types of critters and not others.

If I want to share experiences and wounds when I recombine/unsummon something, that's just a very basic +0 advantage/limitation.

And hey, as a side effect starting level characters can suddenly afford Vehicle Summons like Ghost Riders motorcycle without spending a huge amount of points, since no one is paying for slavishly loyal anymore ;)

[prestidigitator]

I think Summon, Duplication, and even Multiform could do with some revision to make them more consistent with each other. I'm not sure after such revision there should be fewer Powers than there are now, but it could be.

[director13]

"A character using a Mental Power uses EGO

instead of DEX to determine when he acts in the
Phase. (However, his SPD still derives from his
DEX.) If he wants to take any physical actions
(such as making a Half Move) first, he must wait
until his DEX comes up, move, and then use his
Mental Power."

His SPD still derives from his DEX? :nonp:

[Susano]

I'm pretty sure that's been that way for since 4th at least.

[director13]

I'm pretty sure that's been that way for since 4th at least.

How much SPD is a 20 DEX good for in 6e?

[Michael Hopcroft]

How much SPD is a 20 DEX good for in 6e?

2, same as it is for everybody else. The quote you mentioned is probably one of a few things that somehow made it past 700+ pages of proofreading.

What was probably meant was that SPD is the same for Mental Powers as it is for Physical Powers even if EGO is used for initiative. You have the same number of Mental actions as you do Physical actions in a turn.

Perhaps you could buy some of your SPD with the limitation "Only for Mental Actions". That means you only get 2 actions to act physically, but can think a lot quicker and take more actions with your mental powers. But how many of the GMs here would find that a somewhat dodgy build?

[Susano]

How much SPD is a 20 DEX good for in 6e?

Sorry, I was reading it the wrong way. That's an interesting typo there. That and I'm still getting used to "No Figured" so my first reading was "and where's the problem?"

[rjcurrie]

How much SPD is a 20 DEX good for in 6e?

So Steve missed something. It was bound to happen.

[director13]

So Steve missed something. It was bound to happen.

Sure, and I was pointing it out in a humorous forum. What's the problem?

[director13]

2, same as it is for everybody else. The quote you mentioned is probably one of a few things that somehow made it past 700+ pages of proofreading.

What was probably meant was that SPD is the same for Mental Powers as it is for Physical Powers even if EGO is used for initiative. You have the same number of Mental actions as you do Physical actions in a turn.

Perhaps you could buy some of your SPD with the limitation "Only for Mental Actions". That means you only get 2 actions to act physically, but can think a lot quicker and take more actions with your mental powers. But how many of the GMs here would find that a somewhat dodgy build?

Well, now it's been identified and can be fixed. Or not, it's much the same to me. I still find it amusing.

(And I absolutely have pre-built powers for my game with "only for Physical Actions" and "Only for Mental Actions" trying to mirror source material. One of my players has one now. Turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, darn it.)

[rjcurrie]

Sure, and I was pointing it out in a humorous forum. What's the problem?

I guess I don't view it as a humorous thread (cause certainly the whole forum is not humorous) because humor was clearly not the original intent, but rather that it was intended as a place for people to post their pet peeves about 6e. Hence, I took your post as a serious pet peeve with the system.

[Karmakaze]

Perhaps you could buy some of your SPD with the limitation "Only for Mental Actions". That means you only get 2 actions to act physically, but can think a lot quicker and take more actions with your mental powers. But how many of the GMs here would find that a somewhat dodgy build?

It would depend on the concept, but I might allow it. I'd have to think about how much "Only for Mental Actions" is worth. After all, if you can buy Lightning Reflexes (DEX only to move earlier in combat), then there's some precedent for that sort of thing. I think it might be balanced by the fact that in most genres, your mentalist is still facing physical attacks, which the mentalist would not be able to respond to.

[IndianaJoe3]

It would depend on the concept, but I might allow it. I'd have to think about how much "Only for Mental Actions" is worth.

"Only for Mental Actions (or Aborts)" is probably a -1. (Not allowing the character to Abort prior to that Phase means either there's at least one Segment the character can't Abort to anything, or the character could lose two Phases to his Abort.)

[Netzilla]

The 5e writeup of Menton has SPD, Only to use Mental/Telekinetic Powers. That's at -1/2 if I recall correctly. I also recall a couple other official mentalists have something like this as well.

Heck, Grond has +2 SPD just for making extra HtH attacks, so "Mental Speed" doesn't seem any worse.

[Bodkins Odds]

Mr Nobody has extra speed, only to make recoveries. It hasn't been a problem so far. A full healing factor was out of concept, but it still required some form of enhanced healing. Judging from the source material, Spider-Man probably has something similar.

[DreadDomain]

So far I only have very minor "meh" in 6E. First I'll echo Hugh on DEX.

[QUOTE=Hugh Neilson;1893009]My own pet peeve for 6e would initially be pricing DEX at 2 points, along with doubling the cost of DEX skill levels. [\QUOTE]

Second, I find OMCV and DMCV ugly to the eye. I would have prefered OMV and DMV or even better rename the whole set:

OPC (Offensive Physical Combat)
DPC
OMC
DMC

Third, I would have like OMCV and DMCV to be more encompassing and include more mundane ways to influence people (like Presence attack). It would then have been useful for everyone. As is, OMCV is on everyone's sheet but it is only useful for a fraction of people. It would be a reworking of Presence attack mechanics though so maybe not worth it.

So, all in all, I didn't have any WTF moment so far ;)

[Wolf]

I personally probably will rule that the "M" in OMCV/DMCV stands more for Mystical then Mental. That way I can have it as a separate Combat Value for whatever setting I'm running. (Magical for fantasy, Mental for Sci-fi or modern psychic, Mechanical for mechanopaths- witch are very mentally anyway in Hero, ETC.)

Just my 2 copper on the deal.

[the fox]

With a black pen or marker, just carefully write MINT and MEGO over OMCV and DMCV,
as the new , de-coupled stats, Mental Intelligence and Mental Ego.

Why? Because Mental Powers should 'hit' automatically, requiring only that you can 'perceive' your target. No longer would their be some 'magical evasion ability' that allows everyone to 'dodge' mental attacks; their effects can only be mitigated by mental defenses.

MINT would be used to target and 'evade' mental perception, LOS requiring only a regular perception roll.
MEGO would be used for mental defense, just like EGO but possibly a separate value.

Rather than change the cost structure for Mental Powers, just require that a 15 or 20 pt. Adder be added to Mental Powers, 'hits automatically with perception roll'.

[IndianaJoe3]

Barrier: For 3 points you get a barrier that has no defenses and no BODY. Maybe you could use it as a shoebox or something. :rolleyes:

[Lucius]

Barrier: For 3 points you get a barrier that has no defenses and no BODY. Maybe you could use it as a shoebox or something. :rolleyes:

I assume it is still opaque?

That's obviously a curtain.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary says it's curtains for you!

[Vulcan]

I assume it is still opaque?

That's obviously a curtain.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary says it's curtains for you!

It's not just a curtain... it's a cape!

Well, that makes it offical. A cape costs 3 points! :D

[SCUBA Hero]

The palindromedary says it's curtains for you!Lacy, gently wafting curtains...

[Michael Hopcroft]

it's not just a curtain... It's a cape!

Well, that makes it official. A cape costs 3 points! :d

no capes!

[bigbywolfe]

Lacy, gently wafting curtains...
Dr. Horrible Rep!

[prestidigitator]

I assume it is still opaque?

That's obviously a curtain.

Nope. Completely transparent to all senses by default. Opaque requires an Adder (+5 for a single Sense, +10 for a Sense Group; interestingly Targetting/Non-Targetting makes no difference for Barrier).

[lemming]

So it's a sheer.