General Rules Issues

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to see a good hard look at costs of everything. I'd pretty much like to see, for instance, Martial Arts maneuvers costed appropriately, perhaps build them with Powers to the extent possible (not unlike Talents). If there's a maneuver that grants +3 OCV, -2 DCV, and +3d6 Strike, build it that way and make it cost appropriately. Otherwise, everyone buys Martial Arts.

I know it's impossible to run a thorough analysis of the system, but is it possible to at least take a look?

[JohnTaber]

I'd like to see a good hard look at costs of everything. I'd pretty much like to see, for instance, Martial Arts maneuvers costed appropriately, perhaps build them with Powers to the extent possible (not unlike Talents). If there's a maneuver that grants +3 OCV, -2 DCV, and +3d6 Strike, build it that way and make it cost appropriately. Otherwise, everyone buys Martial Arts.

I know it's impossible to run a thorough analysis of the system, but is it possible to at least take a look?

I agree with Chris! Please think about changing the cost a bit. Will rep if possible.

[Susano]

You noticed that too?

Just a bit...

Well...

A lot really.

[Vondy]

I'd like to see a good hard look at costs of everything. I'd pretty much like to see, for instance, Martial Arts maneuvers costed appropriately, perhaps build them with Powers to the extent possible (not unlike Talents). If there's a maneuver that grants +3 OCV, -2 DCV, and +3d6 Strike, build it that way and make it cost appropriately. Otherwise, everyone buys Martial Arts.

Without the cost savings martial arts will become a less granular combination of talents and skill levels or will be tacked into multipowers as a matter of course. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the current martial arts system will become nothing more than a list of pregenerated powers using the power and skill level mechanics - in effect talents. At that point the "martial arts" section becomes redundant. Like I said, that may not be a bad thing, and it would be a good thing to have that list of pregens in the book, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would be extremely unpopular with much of the current hero community. (I currently build martial arts as a set of "talents).

[Toadmaster]

One thing I'm seeing in a number of posts throughout the 6th forums are "fixes" to stop abuse of the rules. I'm sure there are one or two that are appropriate but please don't fall into the trap of trying to thwart the munchkins and rules lawyers with rules. It won't work, that is their gig and they will twist and turn rules in ways normal people would never consider. Only a strong GM can stop this behavior so I would much prefer to see some advice in stopping the plague of muckinism rather than attempts to stop the behavior with the rules.

Only the GM saying NO! will end the Dex 23, Speed 6, 5 levels in all combat, everything in a power framework accountants.

Good advice on character concepts, backgrounds and GM control will go much farther than trying to plug every loop hole.
Definately a solid explaination of if it doesn't cost anything its not worth anything, if it does cost anything it should be worth something is in order.


I have an issue with giving away skills for free because the GM should be trying to incorperate them into the game. If you do go that route then you need to take the time to fully explain the concept. James Bond is full of trivial knowledge, but it gets used so it shouldn't be free. If he only used it for the occasional bar bet to get free drinks then I guess it would be ok to be free. As a GM this would be hard to tell until the character was in play and that is an awkward time to start telling someone they need to pay for a free skill.
I see alot of room for abuse with this, if a skill is free it shouldn't come up in the game, if it doesn't come up in the game it should just be color in the characters background.

Being an expert in anything, even trivia should never be free. Cliff Claven should cost some points, even if most of his vast knowledge is pointless stuff.

If you are really into this concept then perhaps something like a backwards version of GURPS quirks would be appropriate, up to 5 colorful but minor utility skills may be taken for free.


This leads into my next comment, I think it would be a good time to look at everyman skills, personally I think these should go away and be replaced with a cultural package or a specified amount of points that can be spent that every character gets for free (skills chosen with GM approval of course). A character from the Sahara probably won't have swimming but could have survival or an extra 1" of running, since it is a harsh environment and those are useful traits that would be likely for someone who has spent their life living to find water and running from Jackyls. Similarly a character who grew up in royalty might have a bunch of KS relating to bloodlines, internal politics and which fork you eat with in the 4th course of a 9 course feast, but might have a hard time even dressing himself without a servant.

I realize there is nothing in the current system to prevent this but most people seem to take the generic example in the book as the "official" everyman skills which is bland and often inappropriate. Just a paragraph or three emphasizing the generic nature of the example and appropriate alternatives would go far to improving it.


Package "deals" need a little tweaking too, the #1 issue being the name. I never liked the "bonus" anyway but I have seen more arguments and complaints about the loss of a couple points and it all seems to revolve around the name. I don't think much actually needs to be done other than providing a good solid explaination of what packages are for, what is appropriate to put in or leave out and perhaps a name change.

To me packages are the essential elements of a profession or other group. It should only include perks and skills required to function in the group, along with recommendations of useful perks and skills common but not universally possesed by members of the group.

I think a good explaination of what packages are and how to build them would definately be worthwhile. They are a very useful tool that are often overlooked or inappropriately utilized.

[Susano]

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

[Vondy]

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

Yes. In this edition I find my self scratching my head and asking "deal?"

[Toadmaster]

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

Template works, it is a complete move away from the old "Package Deal" name but is still very descriptive of the intended purpose, it also doesn't sound like "Charater classes" a term likely to upset people.

[Susano]

Template works, it is a complete move away from the old "Package Deal" name but is still very descriptive of the intended purpose, it also doesn't sound like "Charater classes" a term likely to upset people.

Ya'think?

[Chris Goodwin]

One thing I'm seeing in a number of posts throughout the 6th forums are "fixes" to stop abuse of the rules. I'm sure there are one or two that are appropriate but please don't fall into the trap of trying to thwart the munchkins and rules lawyers with rules. It won't work, that is their gig and they will twist and turn rules in ways normal people would never consider. Only a strong GM can stop this behavior so I would much prefer to see some advice in stopping the plague of muckinism rather than attempts to stop the behavior with the rules.

It's not about stopping abuse of the rules as much as it is about paying for what you get and getting what you pay for.

[Opal]

Cost breaks of various kinds are pervasive in Hero System, always have been. They do encourage certain behaviors on the part of the players, including point shaving, buying stats at break points, and trying to sneak meaningless limitations and disads past thier DMs.

But, OTOH, they also - with a decent DM - give players the incentive to build characters who fit in the campaign, who's power sets make sense, and who combine both cool abilities /and/ interesting drawbacks, resulting in characters that are actually 'developed' to an extent. Certainly more developed and reasonable than you get in list-based games like D&D, where the player doesn't get any cost breaks - he just picks the set of abilities that give him the most unintended synergies.

[BobGreenwade]

"Package Deals" need to be called "Templates" or something similar. Or simply "Package."

I agree, leaning toward the term "Template" -- unless, of course, the Package Bonus is brought back. (That's a move I'd favor, though enough people dislike it that I won't bother trying to justify it unless asked.)

[Susano]

I agree, leaning toward the term "Template" -- unless, of course, the Package Bonus is brought back. (That's a move I'd favor, though enough people dislike it that I won't bother trying to justify it unless asked.)

Ahh... no. Package Bonuses serve no real useful purpose.

[Opal]

I think a package bonus makes perfect sense. You're getting a tiny point break, in return for voluntarily conforming your character more closely to the GM's campaign world. That's a win-win.


(But don't let players design packages, and don't let disadvantages 'hide' inside package deals like in 3rd. I speak with the authority of a reformed offender on this point.)

[Susano]

I think a package bonus makes perfect sense. You're getting a tiny point break, in return for voluntarily conforming your character more closely to the GM's campaign world. That's a win-win.

I don't see how. If I want to place a police officer, then I should just take the police officer template. I don't need a carrot dangled in front of me to decide what to play or create.