Want to use 5th edition what are the must have rules to grab from 6th edition?

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah, I never liked that as a GM.  The solution is to roll the missing dice yourself and subtract that from the total but again: added complexity.  To me Damage Negation seems like an answer to a question nobody was asking or needed answered.

 

For me it provided an SFX related defence.  FireGuy can have Damage Negation versus fire based attacks, totally in keeping with the genre, regardless of what the defences are to those attacks.  Drains, blasts, mental attacks, anything to do with fire affects him less.  Everything else is unaffected.

 

Its use can accentuate the schtick of characters in the game.

 

Doc

[Opal]

My impression of KAs was that they worked very well at modeling deadly attacks vs normal targets with no resistant defense, especially at the low end, which got very random.

A bullet wound could be potentially fatal without even stunning you, or KO you but leave you stable.

 

But it produced inappropriate results against "invulnerable" types in supers.

 

My solution was to apply the STN mod to BOD inflicted after defenses. Simple,,and made KAs about killing, not KO'ing.

 

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

On 7/16/2022 at 5:08 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Scott, I think you play mainly Heroic games, so the issue probably never hit your games.

 

 

Later, yeah, but my second Champions character had a 3D6 RKA. Others had similar and sometimes higher. I’ve also purchased +1 on the stun multiple on a few attacks. Remember, Champions was for us, purchased at a wargaming convention, so depending on which GM, was how much of a wargame Champions could become. Our zeal in exploring the rules and creation of characters, had us also creating villains to test against the heroes. Compared to that, the strict genre emulation, especially if Comics Code approved titles, felt too fluffy and inconsequential, in comparison.  A year later Pacific Comics and First Conics started publishing for the Direct Market, and Mike Grell’s John Sable Freelance became a big influence on us for character approaches.  The STUN lotto was just seen as an efficient take down of the opposition, and we designed characters with the expectation RKAs would be used against us. Hence how our early campaigns became Dark Champions before it was ever published.  

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Later, yeah, but my second Champions character had a 3D6 RKA. Others had similar and sometimes higher. I’ve also purchased +1 on the stun multiple on a few attacks. Remember, Champions was for us, purchased at a wargaming convention, so depending on which GM, was how much of a wargame Champions could become. Our zeal in exploring the rules and creation of characters, had us also creating villains to test against the heroes. Compared to that, the strict genre emulation, especially if Comics Code approved titles, felt too fluffy and inconsequential, in comparison.  A year later Pacific Comics and First Conics started publishing for the Direct Market, and Mike Grell’s John Sable Freelance became a big influence on us for character approaches.  The STUN lotto was just seen as an efficient take down of the opposition, and we designed characters with the expectation RKAs would be used against us. Hence how our early campaigns became Dark Champions before it was ever published.  

 

Emphasis added.  For those who find the Stun Lotto problematic, this is the core of the concern.  At the same AP, the killing attack is more efficient at stunning and KOing the opponent than a normal attack.  So why should anyone take a normal attack?

 

Making the killing attack about killing, not KO, was the goal.  The 1-3 multiple turns the KA into a niche power in a four-colour Supers game.  That's fine - that genre is not about death duels anyway.

 

I toyed with a KA that did 1 BOD on a 1-5 and 2 on a 6, but subtracted 1 STUN per die - a 5 AP per 1d6 KA.

 

And a Normal Attack that rolled 1d6 per 15 AP, subtract 1, minimum 1 per die.  That's the BOD (average 2 2/3 per 15 AP).  Multiply by 1d6 = STUN (so average of 9 1/3 per 3d6, same as a KA).

 

Now we have more volatile and less volatile damage choices for both.

[BNakagawa]

On 7/18/2022 at 9:08 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Emphasis added.  For those who find the Stun Lotto problematic, this is the core of the concern.  At the same AP, the killing attack is more efficient at stunning and KOing the opponent than a normal attack.  So why should anyone take a normal attack?

 

Making the killing attack about killing, not KO, was the goal.  The 1-3 multiple turns the KA into a niche power in a four-colour Supers game.  That's fine - that genre is not about death duels anyway. [snip]

 

the d3 stun multiple is still capable of dominating EB at generating Stun damage if the cheap +1 Stun Multiple advantage remains in play.

 

The underlying problem is that you have one roll (of significantly fewer dice than an equivalent active power attack built on EB) being multiplied by a random d6 roll. (this multiplier mechanic exists nowhere else in the game system) The rolling of fewer dice and a multiplier creates a wildly random effect that can be and has been exploited for decades. Keeping the +1 Stun Multiple advantage cheap just begs for it to be abused more.

 

On the other side of the ledger, I've never seen a power advantage that helps EB do more body damage...

[LoneWolf]

For me getting rid of the figured stats was great idea.   In previous editions you always increased certain stats no matter what the concept was.  If you did not buy up your DEX and CON as high as possible your character was at a numeric disadvantage.  STR was not quite as bad, but the figured stats still mean that buying up those 3 STATS was the best way to get a powerful character.  This led to a most characters being pretty uniform in their stats.  When the supposed frail telepath has stats on par with Captain America there is something wrong.  In most heroic games it was as bad if not worse.  Almost every character ended up with an 18-20 DEX, including the big slow fighters.  

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

the d3 stun multiple is still capable of dominating EB at generating Stun damage if the cheap +1 Stun Multiple advantage remains in play.

 

The underlying problem is that you have one roll (of significantly fewer dice than an equivalent active power attack built on EB) being multiplied by a random d6 roll. (this multiplier mechanic exists nowhere else in the game system) The rolling of fewer dice and a multiplier creates a wildly random effect that can be and has been exploited for decades. Keeping the +1 Stun Multiple advantage cheap just begs for it to be abused more.

 

On the other side of the ledger, I've never seen a power advantage that helps EB do more body damage...

 

Hi. 

 

I'm Hugh and I'm a mathaholic.

 

Starting with a 60 AP killing attack or normal attack, the average roll will be 42 STUN with the normal attack (our baseline) and [14 x =] 28 for our KA

 

Add +1 Stun Multiple (+1/4) and you now have a 3d6 KA (48 x 1.25 = 60).  That's 10.5 x 3 = 31.5 STUN on average

 

Get GM permission for +2 Multiple (+1/2) and you have 2 1/2d6 (40 x 1.5 = 60), so 9 x 4 = 36 STUN on average.

 

Get GM permission for +4 Multiple (+1) and you have 2d6 (30 x 2 = 60), so 7 x 6 = 42 STUN on average.  Finally caught up with the Normal attack, anyway.

 

Let's make it +8 (+2 advantage) so you have 1d6 + 1 (20 x 3 = 60), so 4.5 x 10 = 45 STUN on average.  3 more STUN.  Barriers and Entangles?  You don't have a hope of getting out.

 

Let's make it +12 (+3 advantage) so you have 1d6 (15 x 4 = 60), so 3.5 x 14 = 49 STUN on average.  I expect that is as high as you will get.

 

But +20 (+5 advantage) would be 1/2 d6 (10 x 6 = 60), so 2 x 22 = 44 STUN on average.  Dropping off now.  Rolling a 3 for 66 STUN would be sweet and make up for getting 22 plinking off when you roll a 1, so if you allow ridiculous increases, the character will gain a STUN advantage.

 

At some point well above, I expect any competent GM will say "no", but you could get +44 Stun Multiple, a +11 advantage, on 1 point of KA, so 46 STUN on average.

[BNakagawa]

And you can get +42 Stun Multiple and Armor Piercing. Or +42 Stun multiple and area effect 1 hex so you can never miss. Or +40 Stun Multiple (which averages the same stun as 12d6 EB that is also Armor Piercing AND never misses.

 

In any case, the +1 Stun Multiple advantage should never have existed in the first place. And it certainly shouldn't be +1/4.

[BNakagawa]

But beyond simply averaging the same (or more) stun than an equivalent active point energy blast, the fundamental problem with the killing attack is the swinginess or extreme variability of the results.

 

Due to the lower number of dice being thrown, an extremely low or extremely high result is much more likely with a KA than an EB. Also, there is the matter of the stun multiple.

 

Do a little thought experiment. Would you allow a power that just rolled 1d6 and multiplied the result by the number of damage classes? I mean, it averages EXACTLY the same as a vanilla energy blast, so it's gotta be balanced, right?

 

I'm betting the answer is, hell no. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

Get GM permission for +4 Multiple (+1) and you have 2d6 (30 x 2 = 60), so 7 x 6 = 42 STUN on average.  Finally caught up with the Normal attack, anyway.

 

 

That is one reason I did away with the stun multiple in my campaigns except for things like magic items.  Its not mathematically efficient, despite feeling like it is better.

 

And the stun lotto as well as other oddities with KA's (particularly at the heroic, low end) is all part of the reasons several of us like the idea of turning KA into the same mechanic as normal damage, with a slight reduction in stun per die (-1 per die).  A current 1d6 KA turns into a 3d6 (same damage classes) counted the same as normal attacks for body and -1 stun per die.  The results are extremely close to the same, but it only requires one mechanic and solves a lot of the issues brought up.

[Opal]

10 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

On the other side of the ledger, I've never seen a power advantage that helps EB do more body damage...

 

3rd had "piercing points" that could make a normal attack deadlier to low-DEF targets 🤷‍♂️

[BNakagawa]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

 

3rd had "piercing points" that could make a normal attack deadlier to low-DEF targets 🤷‍♂️

It wasn't a power advantage, it was an add-on power, sort of like Damage Negation, but in this case, Defense Negation.

 

Also, it no longer exists.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

And you can get +42 Stun Multiple and Armor Piercing. Or +42 Stun multiple and area effect 1 hex so you can never miss. Or +40 Stun Multiple (which averages the same stun as 12d6 EB that is also Armor Piercing AND never misses.

 

In any case, the +1 Stun Multiple advantage should never have existed in the first place. And it certainly shouldn't be +1/4.

 

IIRC, at one time it alternated between +1/4 and +1/2, as +1/2 is too expensive.

 

I can't recall whether advantage stacking is discussed in the rules, but it likely should be.  However, the issue above is easily resolved by a GM realizing that "GM permission to add more than one" is a red flag, so +40 should probably be denied permission.

 

12 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

But beyond simply averaging the same (or more) stun than an equivalent active point energy blast, the fundamental problem with the killing attack is the swinginess or extreme variability of the results.

 

Due to the lower number of dice being thrown, an extremely low or extremely high result is much more likely with a KA than an EB. Also, there is the matter of the stun multiple.

 

Do a little thought experiment. Would you allow a power that just rolled 1d6 and multiplied the result by the number of damage classes? I mean, it averages EXACTLY the same as a vanilla energy blast, so it's gotta be balanced, right?

 

I'm betting the answer is, hell no. 

 

The volatility of the KA,, at least in the 1 - 5 multiple model, makes it the more efficient means of pushing STUN past defenses in excess of about 2x DCs (we did a lot of math on this at one time). That volatility, which also makes Stunning a highly defended target more possible, made it problematic.

 

I toyed with a less extreme "volatile" normal attack and a less volatile KA... I wonder if I still have that somewhere...

THERE IT IS!  Spruce it up to recognize 6e and...voila

Actually, we've already derailed "what should I port over?" too much - I'll start a new thread.  I'll put it in Hero System discussion as we've moved to an "alternate mechanics" discussion.

 

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That is one reason I did away with the stun multiple in my campaigns except for things like magic items.  Its not mathematically efficient, despite feeling like it is better.

 

And the stun lotto as well as other oddities with KA's (particularly at the heroic, low end) is all part of the reasons several of us like the idea of turning KA into the same mechanic as normal damage, with a slight reduction in stun per die (-1 per die).  A current 1d6 KA turns into a 3d6 (same damage classes) counted the same as normal attacks for body and -1 stun per die.  The results are extremely close to the same, but it only requires one mechanic and solves a lot of the issues brought up.

 

I am pretty sure the +1 multiple started for certain fantasy hero weapons and then had to be costed out for the broader rules.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

3rd had "piercing points" that could make a normal attack deadlier to low-DEF targets

 

I liked piercing as a concept but it sucked in practice; the cost was not worth its effect.

[Stirling.N]

My 5th edition make changes to some of the figured characteristics: PD is BODY rather than STR and REC replaces STR with EGO. It corrects the STR bug. 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

20 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

For me getting rid of the figured stats was great idea.   In previous editions you always increased certain stats no matter what the concept was.  If you did not buy up your DEX and CON as high as possible your character was at a numeric disadvantage.  STR was not quite as bad, but the figured stats still mean that buying up those 3 STATS was the best way to get a powerful character.  This led to a most characters being pretty uniform in their stats.  When the supposed frail telepath has stats on par with Captain America there is something wrong.  In most heroic games it was as bad if not worse.  Almost every character ended up with an 18-20 DEX, including the big slow fighters.  

(Emphasis above added by me)  This is precisely why, as a GM I preferred the figured statistics. This meant every character carried their own weight and in most cases avoided the glass cannon effect.  Remember, I was/am a Wargamer type player, and not a "Storyteller", so it was expected that all characters were considered "dangerworthy", in Heroic, and Superheroic games.  IT kept the characters within certain bands, and made GMing them easier in terms of actions, and made it easier for characters to act in a coordinated fashion as the speeds and DEX were close enough that held actions would execute without a lot of waiting. It made it a lot easier as a GM.  I tended to take a dim view on character with low defenses, and stats, as a burden to the teams.  

 

When the supposed frail telepath has stats on par with Captain America there is something wrong.

 

But a glass cannon becomes a problem for the team, and as a GM (and a former D&D player), the Opposition is going to hit the "casters" first, and hardest. Each conscious member of a team is an asset and a resource the leader can direct at their opposition.  This goes in both directions. The goal is to drop as many of the opposite members as one can, while preserving your members as much as possible. This means using one or more of your members, playing "security" for the fragile members. Those that cannot be used putting down members of the opposing team. Sure that protected member can possibly hit above their weight, until they can't, and then they become a liability. It's best to have a character that can reliably defend themselves, against standard threats.  Which is why we had DEF and CON minimums when building teams of Supers, and in Fantasy Hero anything les than 4rPD, was not advised. 

 

(am I the only GM here that was not upset by Players one shotting a villain?)

Going back to the original question, if you get rid of figured characteristics, then one should really be using 6th Edition, rather than 5th.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Glass cannon characters like Cyclops are great in comics because everything is controlled by the writer and the bad guys almost never show any real smart tactical behavior.  They don't work as well in games, because the PCs go after that guy right away, and GMs will put bad guys on everyone, and a weak character can fold up pretty fast with a lucky agent shot.

[Scott Ruggels]

22 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Glass cannon characters like Cyclops are great in comics because everything is controlled by the writer and the bad guys almost never show any real smart tactical behavior.  They don't work as well in games, because the PCs go after that guy right away, and GMs will put bad guys on everyone, and a weak character can fold up pretty fast with a lucky agent shot.

 

Yes! Exactly!!  The main reasons I never went for Narrative Based decisions in Games I played, or games I ran, because back then the thinking was (especially for Horror Movies), was that You didn't have a movie until someone did something stupid.  When I GMed, I would present it as an open ended problem for the players to solve through sound tactics, or even diplomacy, and because I got my entertainment as a GM watching the players figure out the problem, I was never put off by the Players One shotting a problem with an elegant solution, or a skillful application of violence. 

[carmachu]

Mega scale for large areas or out of combat movement

[Opal]

14 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I liked piercing as a concept but it sucked in practice; the cost was not worth its effect.

I have to agree. Might've been better if hardened defenses didn't stop them. They were essentially limited damage.

 

But I did like putting normal piercing points on a villain's EB to make it  lethal.