6th Edition thoughts

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Even just making STR 15 the ability to lift 150kg and 20' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'll have to sit down and fiddle with it. Good thinking for a solution. Simple is usually best.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I believe money finished second to the "pain in the patootie" factor.

 

Licensed settings carry a real loss of control for the company. Imagine having had the DC license in the early 1980's, having a number of published sourcebooks on Earth 1, Earth 2, Earth 3, Earth X, Earth S, etc., so you've got a stable of settings, with fans who buy new releases as they come out.

 

Then along comes Crisis on Infinite Earths, and your licensor tells you that you have to stop reprinting these multiple-earth books and bring everything in line with the New DCU.

 

Or maybe you have the Marvel license, and you're chugging merrily along when you get a telephone call about a little thing called Heroes Reborn. You'll have to stop reprinting any supplements that don't match this new Marvel Universe structure.

 

With the CU, Hero decides what changes will happen, and when.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

The Meta-Verse issue could be solved by a simple Time-Line Split that reconverges around 3000, just a tweak/retcon to that setting would fix it solid.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

This is more obvious with some stats than others' date=' 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.

 

Hmm... is it just the range of STR +20 that you would like to see more granular, or the whole range of the stat? I don't know whether you've looked at The Ultimate Brick, but that includes a table which breaks STR down into more discreet units of lifting and damage capacity. It does add more granularity at the lower ranges.

 

Also, I'm one of those who doubles the cost of STR in certain heroic-level genres, particularly fantasy. It generally results in the players choosing their stats more carefully, and more variety in STR scores among the PCs. I realize that's not to everyone's liking, though.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Even just making STR 15 the ability to lift 150kg and 20' date=' 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.[/quote']

NNNNNOOOOOOOOO! You're never going to take my nice, simple single-equation, exponential lifting chart away from me! Never! You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead, stone-like, superheroic (Str 30) fingers!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

If the goal is to make every point count, consider the following:

 

(a) replace the 1/2 d6 at 3 points and 1d6 at 5 points rule with the following:

 

1 +1, no BOD

2 +1/3d6 (1-2), no BOD

3 +1/2d6 (1-3), 1 BOD on a 6

4 +1d6 - 1; 1 BOD on a 6

5 +1d6

 

This helps out STR and PRE

 

( If a character misses a roll based on any stat, and they have more stat points than they need for their stat roll, they get to roll a d6. If the d6 is less than their extra stat points, they succeed - just barely. EXAMPLE: Big Charley has a PRE of 20. He wants to Persuade a suspect to talk. He needs to roll an 8- due to situational modifiers. Charlie rolls a 9, just missed! he gets to roll a d6 due to the 2 PRE he has above the breakpoint for his usual 13- roll. If he rolls a 1 or 2, he Persuades the suspect to talk after all.

 

Between these, we get a benefit for every point of STR, DEX, INT, EGO and PRE. CON already has a benefit at every point in the form of resistance to being Stunned, and every BOD counts already. That leaves COM, and it never matters for much anyway (plus you can get the benefit when it's a complementary roll).

 

More dice? Sure. But you get your granularity - every stat point now has a benefit.

[Lucius]

6th Edition thoughts

 

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.

 

Archermoo's proposal is radical, but rooted in sound principle. I am therefore very ambivalent about it.

 

Can you explain how it applies to the Normal/Killing problem?

 

Lucius Alexande

 

Did the palindromedary take a byte out of my signature?

[Curufea]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I'd like to see collaborative publication similar to Paranoia XP.

Create a wiki - have people contribute rules ideas and other things. Be strict in what is allowed (ie no copyrighted IP), and collate it all into published materials with writers expanding on what was discussed.

[Black Rose]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

If there was ever to be a Sixth Edition' date=' I for one would only support it if it were a radical departure from what's gone before. I would say, leave the Fifth Edition for those of us who like detailed, layered rules. For Sixth Edition, go for simplified, stripped-down core mechanics, with options to modify them to the complexity that individual gamers want. There have been proposals for such things here on the boards before: eliminate Energy Blast, Killing Attack, Strength damage, and replace them with a generic Attack Power; chuck Force Field, Armor, Normal and Resistant Physical and Energy Defense, in favor of generic Defense; then use Modifiers to customize them to work as desired. Keep a few primary Characteristics, but with the cost for them based on campaign parameters, and any Figured Characteristics based on what would be used in the campaign (e.g. all BODY Damage with no STUN, Endurance or not, Sanity or Mana stats in game genres that would use them).[/quote']

You know, this sounds suspicially like Tri-Stat...

 

Not that I have a problem with that, really. I'm rather fond of BESM and SAS. I'm an Anime fan from fairly way back, and I bought the Sailor Moon RPG and Resource Guide when it first came out (and Tenchi, and Dominion, and Demon City, and....). Just be aware where you're heading.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

You'll have to pry it from my cold' date=' dead, stone-like, superheroic (Str 30) fingers! [/quote']

 

Honestly, I have no problems with that.

 

I did use the word optional.

[Vondy]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Hmm... is it just the range of STR +20 that you would like to see more granular' date=' or the whole range of the stat? I don't know whether you've looked at [i']The Ultimate Brick[/i], but that includes a table which breaks STR down into more discreet units of lifting and damage capacity. It does add more granularity at the lower ranges.

 

Also, I'm one of those who doubles the cost of STR in certain heroic-level genres, particularly fantasy. It generally results in the players choosing their stats more carefully, and more variety in STR scores among the PCs. I realize that's not to everyone's liking, though.

 

I think the exponential nature of the stat works fine for superheroic games, or some higher end cinematic games. I just want more granularity at the lower ranges (10-30) for specific kinds of campaigns. Most of the other stats are abstract and can be stretched towards 30 and provide some semblance of realism along with the broader range of stat and skill rolls, but strength, because of its concrete benchmarks that exceed normative human capabilities, can't be stretched that way. I haven't looked at the ultimate brick, but the general idea sounds about right. I can come up with my own table though, as damage is fairly easily managed.

[Gaussian]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

As I understand it' date=' Peter Adkinson invented the concept of collectable card games. I may be wrong, as my research has been casual, but I never read anything qualifying it as "America only". But that could just be sloppy reporting on what I read. [/quote']

Hi there. First time poster, but I've been lurking here for a bit. I usually don't bother posting, but since this place seems to be one of the few bastions of civility on the 'net, I'll go for it.

 

I'm really not attempting to re-hijack the thread, but I just noticed this common misconception and wanted to give credit where credit is due. Richard Garfield invented the concept of the CCG, Adkinson just handled the business end.

 

Check out Garfield's wikipedia entry if you're interested:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garfield

 

Anyway, back to the much more interesting original topic.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I'm really not attempting to re-hijack the thread, but I just noticed this common misconception and wanted to give credit where credit is due. Richard Garfield invented the concept of the CCG, Adkinson just handled the business end.

 

Thanks.

I was getting my Richards confused.

[Kristopher]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

If there was ever to be a Sixth Edition, I for one would only support it if it were a radical departure from what's gone before. I would say, leave the Fifth Edition for those of us who like detailed, layered rules. For Sixth Edition, go for simplified, stripped-down core mechanics, with options to modify them to the complexity that individual gamers want. There have been proposals for such things here on the boards before: eliminate Energy Blast, Killing Attack, Strength damage, and replace them with a generic Attack Power; chuck Force Field, Armor, Normal and Resistant Physical and Energy Defense, in favor of generic Defense; then use Modifiers to customize them to work as desired. Keep a few primary Characteristics, but with the cost for them based on campaign parameters, and any Figured Characteristics based on what would be used in the campaign (e.g. all BODY Damage with no STUN, Endurance or not, Sanity or Mana stats in game genres that would use them).

 

There's a lot there that I don't ever want to see in HERO.

 

The reductionists already found some traction in 5th edition with what happened to Regeneration and whatnot, and I'd pretty much reject any new material that went any further in that direction. I don't want to need a block of modifers to build ever single power a character has. I don't want myself or my players to have to parse out the way every power on a character works by looking up half a dozen modifiers.

 

Even worse, though, would be a move to have customized rules for each genre. STR is STR, BODY is BODY, END is END, HERO is HERO.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

*ponders*

 

Nah, I'm not going to step into this whole-hog yet. I tried to increase the cost of STR in my campaign and had a mutiny. It was annoying. While I agree, there's plenty of other things in HERO that make me **** an eyebrow, but I think we're getting more into a discussion of "rules we don't like in HERO" and less of one about what would work in 6th Edition.

 

I'm all for rules discussions, but there should be a clear demarcartion between what we as individuals think is appropriate to the game, and what we can collectively discuss would be good for a 6th Edition. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't tied together, either.

[Lucius]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

There's a lot there that I don't ever want to see in HERO.

 

The reductionists already found some traction in 5th edition with what happened to Regeneration and whatnot, and I'd pretty much reject any new material that went any further in that direction. I don't want to need a block of modifers to build ever single power a character has. I don't want myself or my players to have to parse out the way every power on a character works by looking up half a dozen modifiers.

.

 

So it's better to have a half-dozen or more damage-causing powers, skills, etc. and then deal with the nightmare of how to add them together?

 

"I hit him with a multi-power attack with my armor piercing killing attack, and my autofire hand attack. I have martial strike and a STR of 30. How do I figure damage again????"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that this is one area where we definitely think the game needs to be simplified - and making Killing an advantage rather than a power would definitely tend to simplify here, as well as improving balance and consistency.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

There's a lot there that I don't ever want to see in HERO.

 

The reductionists already found some traction in 5th edition with what happened to Regeneration and whatnot, and I'd pretty much reject any new material that went any further in that direction. I don't want to need a block of modifers to build ever single power a character has. I don't want myself or my players to have to parse out the way every power on a character works by looking up half a dozen modifiers.

 

Even worse, though, would be a move to have customized rules for each genre. STR is STR, BODY is BODY, END is END, HERO is HERO.

 

Quoted for truth. In my case at least.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

So it's better to have a half-dozen or more damage-causing powers, skills, etc. and then deal with the nightmare of how to add them together?

 

As opposed to a single damage causing power that would require modifers for each different use of said power, within each character, or between characters, Yes.

[incrdbil]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

"I hit him with a multi-power attack with my armor piercing killing attack, and my autofire hand attack. I have martial strike and a STR of 30. How do I figure damage again????"

 

Some may say that is just a reason to get rid of multi-power attacks..

[Conduit]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

 

"I hit him with a multi-power attack with my armor piercing killing attack, and my autofire hand attack. I have martial strike and a STR of 30. How do I figure damage again????"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that this is one area where we definitely think the game needs to be simplified - and making Killing an advantage rather than a power would definitely tend to simplify here, as well as improving balance and consistency.

 

If you don't understand it, don't buy it. Having just one attack power would not be a simplification. It would make every thing that much more confusing because of all the additional modifiers.

[Kristopher]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

"I hit him with a multi-power attack with my armor piercing killing attack, and my autofire hand attack. I have martial strike and a STR of 30. How do I figure damage again????"

 

Some may say that is just a reason to get rid of multi-power attacks..

 

 

Yes. This is one of the many reasons to get rid of Muli-Power Attacks, one of my least favorite additions to 5th edition.

[incrdbil]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Yes. This is one of the many reasons to get rid of Muli-Power Attacks' date=' one of my least favorite additions to 5th edition.[/quote']

 

I'm trying to decide what multi-power attacks added to the game in exchange for its consequnces. The only people in my super games that even think about them are martial artists. Few seem willing to do the specific builds to abuse it properly, I'm thinking of just house ruling them out of all my games so as not to have to worry about them.

[archermoo]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I'm trying to decide what multi-power attacks added to the game in exchange for its consequnces. The only people in my super games that even think about them are martial artists. Few seem willing to do the specific builds to abuse it properly' date=' I'm thinking of just house ruling them out of all my games so as not to have to worry about them.[/quote']

 

Well, what multi-power attacks in 5th edition added was limitations as to when you could use multiple powers as a single attack. The fact that a lot of people didn't realize that using multiple powers in a single attack was part of the original concept of the game doesn't change that it was intended prior to 5th, just not explicitly spelled out. 5th just spelled it out and put limitations on how it could be used.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

I'm trying to decide what multi-power attacks added to the game in exchange for its consequnces. The only people in my super games that even think about them are martial artists. Few seem willing to do the specific builds to abuse it properly' date=' I'm thinking of just house ruling them out of all my games so as not to have to worry about them.[/quote']

 

I've seen a number of attacks over the years that blended two attack types. As an example, a lightbeam which was (say) a 10d6 EB + 2d6 Sight Flash. What's wrong with that?

 

Nothing, IMO. Except that, without a multiple power attack, it was illegal. Or it was legal only if you took the Limitation Linked. So a Limitation allows me to do something I otherwise could not do - how is that limiting?

 

I like the idea of MPA's to combine a standard attack with a small exotic attack. Where I see an issue is combining several campaign-maximum attacks into one uber-blast. One solution to this would be a campaign max to total DC in a MPA.

[Kristopher]

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

 

Well' date=' what multi-power attacks in 5th edition added was limitations as to when you could use multiple powers as a single attack. The fact that a lot of people didn't realize that using multiple powers in a single attack was part of the original concept of the game doesn't change that it was intended prior to 5th, just not explicitly spelled out. 5th just spelled it out and put limitations on how it could be used.[/quote']

 

If it's not spelled out, it's not in the game.