6th Edition thoughts

[Thia Halmades]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Well, wait. Archermoo, unless I misunderstand the rules, you CAN reduce your PD, ED and SPD down to 1 - you just take the refund for them. I may be missing your point here. I don't have an issue with figured stats; if you don't want the SPD 4, reduce your SPD to whatever you want and collect the points for it. If you really want to debate it, you can even start with a 2.6 SPD, spend 4 points to make it 3 ... and then change your mind knock it to two and take all 10 points. But that's me.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I think 10-15 years is a good standard for updating a good system. One of the problems with extremely long timetables is the tendency for "core" books to go out of print(CKC' date=' for example). Also, there will tend to be rule/feature bloat after a while...if you put all of the rules variants in with 5th revised, you'd probably have a 1000 page tome. So, eventually, we'll need a new edition just to trim things down to a manageable size.[/quote']

 

According to the official CU timeline, the Age of Superheroes ends shortly after the year 2020. Out of sheer practicality Hero Games will have to come up with something before then.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

According to the official CU timeline' date=' the Age of Superheroes ends shortly after the year 2020. Out of sheer practicality Hero Games will have to come up with [b']something[/b] before then.

One would certainly hope so. It'd be hard to play in the CU if the CU is scheduled to end in a year or three...

[Blue]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

They could go the Wizards route and release it as 3 seperate books. I mean, essentially what D&D is, is a book about the size of 5ER, only split into 3 parts (PHB, DMG, MM) stripped of setting info, and stuffed with color pictures.

 

It would be something like the "Character Builder book" and "Combat Book". Everything else could show up seperately as always (FH, SH, Champions, etc.) If they wanted the equivalent of a Monster Manual, they could pack it with villains of different genres.

 

But I'm more a fan of having it all in one REALLY WELL INDEXED book. Makes life so much easier.

 

So, to recap: 6th Edition?

[schir1964]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Well' date=' wait. Archermoo, unless I misunderstand the rules, you CAN reduce your PD, ED and SPD down to 1 - you just take the refund for them. I may be missing your point here.[/quote']

I think his point was:

1) The rules forbid buying down more that one Figured Stat.

2) If the rule above is ignored, then you end up with more points than you started with, which makes no sense.

 

By eliminating "Figured Stats" you eliminate the problems that they create.

 

Another solution is simply to price the Primary Stats from the actual benefits they provide from Figured Stats. Strength's cost would skyrocket and some others as well.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Another solution is simply to price the Primary Stats from the actual benefits they provide from Figured Stats. Strength's cost would skyrocket and some others as well.

 

Or reprice figured stats at a lower level so they can be purchased as effectively without the primary stat (and set "No Figured" for each relevant stat at a price level consistent with the value foregone).

[archermoo]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I think his point was:

1) The rules forbid buying down more that one Figured Stat.

2) If the rule above is ignored, then you end up with more points than you started with, which makes no sense.

 

By eliminating "Figured Stats" you eliminate the problems that they create.

 

Another solution is simply to price the Primary Stats from the actual benefits they provide from Figured Stats. Strength's cost would skyrocket and some others as well.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Mostly I was refering to #1. The rules by default only allow you to buy down one figured stat. So by default the character concept I mentioned is against the rules.

 

And while there are a number of way to make figured stats balance out, I prefer getting rid of the concept entirely. Not the stats mind you, just them being based off of one of the current "primary" stats. It seems more in tune with the "build anything you want" concept that is the core of Hero.

[John Desmarais]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I would like it to:

 

1) read more like a game manual and less like a legal text

Well, it was written by a lawyer.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Mostly I was refering to #1. The rules by default only allow you to buy down one figured stat. So by default the character concept I mentioned is against the rules.

 

I'm not arguing with your basic premise. I think I once started a thread about characteristics being contrary to HERO principles.

 

However the way to have a high STR and CON with low PD and ED is to buy the primaries with no figured stats (-1/2). All well within the rules but not a common sense way to go about it.

 

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Eh, each to their own. Figured stats has always seemed to me to be counter to everything else in the rules, and for that matter the flavour of the system. Built whatever you want. Except when it comes to stats. If you want to play a character with a high STR and CON, but low PD and ED, you need to get GM permission as that is explicitly against the rules.

 

To me at least giving you a point of SPD for every 10 points of DEX you buy makes about as much sense as giving you 1pd/1ed of ForceField for every 1d6 of Enery Blast you buy. Yes, most agile people are also quick. But most energy blasters use force fields. So why force one concept and not the other? Why shouldn't I be allowed to play a guy with a 30 Dex, 23 Con, 2 SPD and 30 END? I'd say that stats being figured off of other stats is about as useful as minimums on powers were.

 

Oh, and yes, I know that figured stats have always been part of the game. It was one of the things that made me go "Huh?" when I first read it back in '81.

I agree. A while ago I actually came up with such a system. It went a little further than Primary-ising the Figured Characteristics, though. It also turned OCV, DCV, OECV, DECV, HTH Damage (Str turned into something that purely gives you lifting/force, grab/hold effectiveness, breakout capability, and HTH Damage is used to do actual damage in most cases) and Pre Damage into their own Characteristics. All the current Primary Characteristics went to a cost of one (except Com, which I believe I left at 1/2).

 

I think it has a lot of potential, and there's nothing keeping a character from being bought with the current relationships. Most people didn't seem to like the idea for some reason, though.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Well' date=' it was written by a lawyer.[/quote']

 

So was the Patriot Act.

[Lucius]

6th Edition thoughts

 

Probably half the threads here could be interpreted as discussions of what should be in a 6th edition.

 

As for the shelf-life of the Champions Universe, that doesn't effect the core rules. That just means the support material needs to be updated. I bought 5th edition when it came out, and I didn't KNOW the universe had a shelf-life until I started haunting these message boards.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And definitely no palindromedary in 6th edition

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Probably half the threads here could be interpreted as discussions of what should be in a 6th edition.

 

As for the shelf-life of the Champions Universe, that doesn't effect the core rules. That just means the support material needs to be updated. I bought 5th edition when it came out, and I didn't KNOW the universe had a shelf-life until I started haunting these message boards.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And definitely no palindromedary in 6th edition

 

The meta-setting could silently disappear in a conspiratorial-esque event of X-File-ish proportions and all would be solved.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

The meta-setting could silently disappear in a conspiratorial-esque event of X-File-ish proportions and all would be solved.

well, if they made enough money to eventually take a risk on licensed properties, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened.

[archermoo]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

well' date=' if they made enough money to eventually take a risk on licensed properties, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened.[/quote']

 

Well, keep in mind that money isn't the only reason that Hero isn't doing licensed properties. In a thread that I don't have time to search for right now Steve posted a list of requirements for them to do a licensed property, and money only figured into it in a small way.

 

And as far as the meta setting goes in general, it is only there if you want to use it. Nothing says you have to use it if you don't like it.

[Beetle]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Well' date=' keep in mind that money isn't the only reason that Hero isn't doing licensed properties.[/quote']I believe money finished second to the "pain in the patootie" factor.

[Roland]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

10) consider ways of making heroic level games more granular

 

I assume you meant less granular - i.e., less discrete, more continuous.

 

At first I thought Archermoo's proposal to do away with figured characteristics was kinda silly, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It would certainly address the granularity problem (for the vocal minority who perceive Hero's granularity as a problem). It might also make it easier to address the inconsistencies between normal and killing attacks and their relationship to STR.

 

OTOH, it is a sufficiently radical change that we would certainly not get it right the first time. As we played this 6th edition, we would find the bugs in the new characteristic costs, and a 7th edition would be sure to follow in short order.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Personally I would like to 6th as nothing but a "bugfix" release of 5th. I consider the best iteration of the rules, with only a few small squibbles, but as much as anything those are taste. I'd want to leave the "sacred cows" alone - relationship between base and figured characteristic, costs of same, frameworks, most of the powers.

Some tweaking and fine tuning of powers with additions and subtractions would be cool - ie nothing bigger than the change from 4th to 5th.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I assume you meant less granular - i.e., less discrete, more continuous.

 

At first I thought Archermoo's proposal to do away with figured characteristics was kinda silly, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It would certainly address the granularity problem (for the vocal minority who perceive Hero's granularity as a problem). It might also make it easier to address the inconsistencies between normal and killing attacks and their relationship to STR.

 

OTOH, it is a sufficiently radical change that we would certainly not get it right the first time. As we played this 6th edition, we would find the bugs in the new characteristic costs, and a 7th edition would be sure to follow in short order.

 

No, I meant exactly what I said. The range for non cinematic heroic level games is thin like twiggy.

[Roland]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

First, a small formatting change I'd like to see in 6th edition (or even 5.2): Just as 5ER did away with the clunky '1/2' fraction format in favor of the neater, more compact '½', I would like to see the lower-case 'x' replaced with an actual times sign '×' in Power builds. In a serif font, the letter 'x' just doesn't look like a times sign to me.

 

Second, and more substantively, I would like to see the current Talents category reconsidered. I think 5E took a wrong turn here - one that some subsequent publications have already started to back away from. Talents are currently a hodge-podge of true Talents, limited Skills, Super Skills, and minor Powers.

 

I would like to see the category of Talents restricted to its original definition - strange, rare, inborn, non-super, natural abilities like Ambidexterity, Perfect Pitch, Lightning Calculator, and so forth. Characters could start out with these abilities, but they could not gain them thereafter. And they would always be subject to GM approval, just to ensure that all characters did not take the same Talents. This would make Talents an actual ability category with its own integrity, rather than a catch-all hodge-podge category.

 

The other abilities that have been categorized as Talents in 5E would be better listed as examples of how players and GMs might use Skills and Powers, in conjunction with Advantages and Limitations, to create custom-built Super Skills, Power Skills, and minor Powers, as well as creative applications of Skill Levels and Penalty Skill Levels. Some of the genre and setting books have already gone the Super/Power Skill route, while others have expanded Talents even further. I would prefer to limit/purify the Talents category and place Super/Power Skills more appropriately.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

No' date=' I meant exactly what I said. The range for non cinematic heroic level games is thin like twiggy.[/quote']

 

If we tweaked the STR benchmarks a bit(like, say, non-exponential for the "human" range, then exponential as we go superhuman), then we could set up a range from, say, 5 to 50, rather than 5 to 25. It would have an effect on the whole system, though.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

If we tweaked the STR benchmarks a bit(like' date=' say, non-exponential for the "human" range, then exponential as we go superhuman), then we could set up a range from, say, 5 to 50, rather than 5 to 25. It would have an effect on the whole system, though.[/quote']

 

I don't think there's an easy solution, but when I sit down and make characters, I have a base stat roll of 11-, 12- or 13-. That's the entire range right there. Its the same for base skill rolls. Now, yes, you can buy skill levels to add a little more range, but that's more expensive than just buying the stat up to levels that are ludicrous for the character or the tone of a "more realistic game." This is more obvious with some stats than others, and you're right: strength is the primary offender (most of the others stretch pretty well upwards of 20 because they don't have concrete benchmarks attached to them, though they can throw figured characteristics through the roof, but strength is a problem child because of the exponential increases). If I've lived with it this long, I can live with it. On the other hand, maybe an optional strength chart for the up to 30 range that wasn't eponential would fix the problem. That would give me a wider range without Ton+ lifters running around throwing wagons and horses and other nifty weirdness that doesn't fit.

[Roland]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

No' date=' I meant exactly what I said. The range for non cinematic heroic level games is thin like twiggy.[/quote']

 

I think I am disagreeing with your semantics, not your substance. A granular system is one that encourages characters to choose from a few super-efficient characteristic levels (e.g., 10, 13, 15, 18, 20). A system where characters have an incentive to take 16 STR or 19 DEX would be less granular, not more granular.

 

Table sugar is granular - i.e., it comes in discrete, visible chunks. Powdered sugar is not granular.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I think I am disagreeing with your semantics' date=' not your substance. A granular system is one that encourages characters to choose from a few super-efficient characteristic levels (e.g., 10, 13, 15, 18, 20). A system where characters have an incentive to take 16 STR or 19 DEX would be [i']less[/i] granular, not more granular.

 

Table sugar is granular - i.e., it comes in discrete, visible chunks. Powdered sugar is not granular.

 

I'm not going to quibble with you; nor am I going to change my definition. Less choices means less discrete chunks. Less grains. We both know what the other means. Arguing semantics won't advance the discussion.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I don't think there's an easy solution' date=' but when I sit down and make characters, I have a base stat roll of 11-, 12- or 13-. That's the entire range right there. Its the same for base skill rolls. Now, yes, you can buy skill levels to add a little more range, but that's more expensive than just buying the stat up to levels that are ludicrous for the character or the tone of a "more realistic game." This is more obvious with some stats than others, and you're right: strength is the primary offender (most of the others stretch pretty well upwards of 20 because they don't have concrete benchmarks attached to them, though they can throw figured characteristics through the roof, but strength is a problem child because of the exponential increases). If I've lived with it this long, I can live with it. On the other hand, maybe an [i']optional[/i] strength chart for the up to 30 range that wasn't eponential would fix the problem. That would give me a wider range without Ton+ lifters running around throwing wagons and horses and other nifty weirdness that doesn't fit.

Even just making STR 15 the ability to lift 150kg and 20, 200kg, would improve things, since then 30 would fall short of a ton. DEX has more granularity, because CVs can range from 2 to 7 or 10.