New Limitations to Old Powers in New Books

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

Not to continue the debate, but if the FAQ has no relevance than why have it at all? I am sure that Steve could save several hours a week if he just stopped answering people's questions and told them to just use whatever interpretation of FREd they want.

 

The FAQ is there to correct and make clear the rules in FREd. Sometimes those rules corrections are positive and sometimes those rules changes are negative. Eventually DOJ will get around to publishing an updated version of FREd. Until that time we must use FREd, the FAQ, and the Errata to get the most concise rules version possible.

Clearing up misconceptions about the rules isn't quite the same thing as a rules change. I didn't have any questions about how to use Change Environment and then USPD comes out...

 

Steve's not doing people a favor when he answers their questions. He's keeping his customers from going elsewhere. I like DOJ but I am a customer, not a fanboy. Should DOJ follow such policies that you provide as options when someone has a criticism of something that DOJ is doing, it may well be negative for DOJ as well as the customer.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

Should DOJ follow such policies that you provide as options when someone has a criticism of something that DOJ is doing, it may well be negative for DOJ as well as the customer.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

Talkin' about Steve not answering questions

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

Talkin' about Steve not answering questions

Oh. Well Steve would never stop answering questions. Steve actually likes his fans. I was being facetious.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

Oh. Well Steve would never stop answering questions. Steve actually likes his fans. I was being facetious.

I'm actually surprised at how quickly he responds to questions. My complaint is a tempest in a teapot, at present, and I love many of the things that have been done with 5th Edition. I also know that by making my tastes known, I represent some, or at least one, member(s) of the gaming community. By pointing out my tastes, I am putting in my "vote" for how the game should be conducted.

 

What do I want in this case: I want any character that is built following the rules in FRED to be considered a validly constructed character in any appropriate genre game barring house rules. I really don't think that is too much to ask.

[Killer Shrike]

Ok, Im really not seeing the big deal here. I mean, what is the problem? Its just an Adder. Its not like its a +2 mandatory Advantage or a major change in how the game system functions.

 

Ignore it, grandfather it, email Steve a reminder of it, whatever. Buy why stress over it?

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Monolith

I think this just has to do with the fact that people do not like change. The odd thing is that the HERO System has changed a great deal over the last 22 years and 99.9% of those changes (both positive and negative to powers) have been good for the game. I do not think people should get too hung-up on changes. They are just part of the evolution of the game. People forget things, and change their minds, even when a manuscript has been sitting around for 2 years waiting to be published.

 

With me, it's not that I don't like change.

 

I specifically don't like rule changes in supplements. It's a gaming pet-peeve. If I buy the basic book, that should be enough to run the game. Rules additions, extra powers, extra abilities, I can deal with, and sometimes I even like them. But actual *changes* to the rules, no way.

 

Specific to this case, I don't like the fact that rules changes requiring the expenditure of more points for the same effect are being tacked on in supplements. If they also end up in the FAQ or another freely and readily available form, I can deal with them.

 

Personally, I consider the FAQ a -- maybe THE -- valid place for those kinds of changes.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

What do I want in this case: I want any character that is built following the rules in FRED to be considered a validly constructed character in any appropriate genre game barring house rules. I really don't think that is too much to ask.

It is not too much to ask. But you have then just invalidated 100 pages of Rules FAQ. You cannot really have it both ways by toting the FAQ when it benefits you and ignoring it when it does not. Fully half the questions in the FAQ are about understanding the interpretation of the rules in FREd. If we did not include the FAQ information in those instances then people would still be using FREd differently because each GM and group would interpret the book rules differently.

 

In any event, if someone does not agree with something in either FREd or the FAQ they are quite free to house rule it however they see fit. That is even in the book.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

It is not too much to ask. But you have then just invalidated 100 pages of Rules FAQ. You cannot really have it both ways by toting the FAQ when it benefits you and ignoring it when it does not. Fully half the questions in the FAQ are about understanding the interpretation of the rules in FREd. If we did not include the FAQ information in those instances then people would still be using FREd differently because each GM and group would interpret the book rules differently.

 

In any event, if someone does not agree with something in either FREd or the FAQ they are quite free to house rule it however they see fit. That is even in the book.

Wow, this parallels the Judicial Restraint/Judicial Activism debate concerning the Supreme Court.

 

I am refuting any portion of the FAQ that changes the rules in FRED, not the portions of the FAQ that interpret the rules. On this issue, if DOJ agreed with me, I could have my cake and eat it too.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Ok, Im really not seeing the big deal here. I mean, what is the problem? Its just an Adder. Its not like its a +2 mandatory Advantage or a major change in how the game system functions.

 

Ignore it, grandfather it, email Steve a reminder of it, whatever. Buy why stress over it?

Because I have too much spare time.

 

Like I have said. I want to make a stink so DOJ carefully considers any rules changes that make a character illegal that would be legal without such information. Players do join new groups and join pick up games at stores and it would be helpful to keep FRED sacred until there actually is a 6th edition.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

Perhaps you need to learn a little more about the system before you start painting it with such broad strokes. 13 books have been published and this is the first instance that this has ever come up; and even then it is probably just an oversight that it has not been updated to the rules FAQ (I do take into account that Steve has spent the last 4 months intensely working on Fantasy Hero so that it would be ready in time for Gen Con).

So... You are telling him he has to buy all 13 books to be worthy.

[Primal]

heh.. I have been playing Hero since third edition..

 

to clarify my position, I was reacting to comments along these lines-

The rules FAQ is full of hundreds of new additions and clarifications. Why should published books be any different?

if there can be rules restrictions added in books that don't make it into a freely available errata, i have a problem.. you are now saying its absence from the FAQ/errata is temporary oversite and not policy, so i have no problem with that, once it is rectified..

 

i may dislike "affects porous", and may house rule it away, but I can know it is official policy from FREd + errata.. I don't have to have run across it in some obscure (to me) book..

[Blue Angel]

That whole affects porous thing is a misnomer anyway. Something that is porous can absorb water. Like sponges or or certain bassaltic rocks that are filled with holes. Doesn't he mean affects liquids?

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

That whole affects porous thing is a misnomer anyway. Something that is porous can absorb water. Like sponges or or certain bassaltic rocks that are filled with holes. Doesn't he mean affects liquids?

 

He meant liquids, but until he FAQs it out it means affects sponges.

 

In that case I cry foul! +5 or +10 points to have your TK affect a sponge is horrendously overpriced.

 

Why are sponges exempt after all. I mean, what's so special about sponges that they are inherently immune to TK. Is this a meta-rule? Hero Meta Rule No. 10: Sponges are inherently immune to superpowers?

 

Time for a house rule...

[Blue Angel]

ROFDL

 

HAHAHAHAHA:)

 

Hey people have pores. It must affect people.

[Kristopher]

Poor us, we can't be affected by telekinesis.

[Blue Angel]

Oooo. Groaner. Just jealous cause I didn't think of it first.

 

With that sponge super power immunity the good guys could realy get their clocks cleaned.

[J4y]

Why are sponges exempt after all. I mean, what's so special about sponges that they are inherently immune to TK. Is this a meta-rule? Hero Meta Rule No. 10: Sponges are inherently immune to superpowers?

 

Ohhhh, who lives in a pineapple under the sea?

[Kristopher]

Yellow, absorbant, and POURUS is he!

[Superskrull]

my two cents...

 

Well, I have carefully read this thread that may actually be indirectly my fault since I'm the obsessive guy reading over the Until book and grumbling to Agent X after the game this weekend. I was trying to figure out this Martinez Scale, BTW, and it seems kinda inconsistent.

Anyway, I read the prior posts and I'm gonna talk too, for what it's worth.

 

When it comes to rule mods for characters I have previously constructed, I am of exactly one mind; I already balanced those point totals. I did it using the 5th Ed rulebook and a calculator. They balanced and there was no attempt to cheese a few points here and there. Tell me why I have to look at a newer book and go online to check the FAQ I have no interest in reading.

 

FAQ stands for frequently asked questions, not for rules errata. Why should there be anything but clarifications of hazy points in rule use in a FAQ? If I wanted a new rule book, I'd start asking for one. I'd ask for it in print, too.

 

The big problem I have with these alterations to the rules isn't that I don't want a change but that the change I see is one that is causing further alterations. In D&D, your character sheet can change due to all sorts of circumstances. Gods grant you additional Strength, touching the cursed relic of Whazzat makes you kill plants by looking at them, drawing a card can add 50000 XP or steal your soul. That happens, the only thing you do is note the changes on the sheet. In Hero, you not only have stats, they cost points. Beefcake, hidden deity of gymnasiums gives you +5 Str for saving him from Infomercial Hell, that goes on the sheet as " 5pts -Blessing of Beefcake: +5 Str" & 5 XP are added to your total or listed as Beefcake Bonus 5pts over by disads and XP. Tell me why I have to suddenly add Stupid New Rule Bonus

6pts to Water Witch's sheet because her book-legal Str 50 TK Water only (-1/2) now costs more or lower her TK to Str 43 or so to make up the 10 active point difference.

 

The problem isn't that there was a change, it's that the change messes with the characters and they need to be rebalanced, pointwise. It's annoying to be told that I need to keep shelling out the bucks and checking the web lest my character grow obsolete.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Monolith

You, in your desire to cause trouble in most of the threads you are in, always overlook the obvious.

Well, now that we have gotten past the seemingly obligatory "first, attack the messenger" snipe...

Originally posted by Monolith

You, apparently, think that Steve Long is a machine and that he can instantly remember all 100 pages of the rules FAQ and errata which has been updated or expanded over the last 18 months.

Since i did not mention MR Long in my post, this is an interesting, imaginative, and downright fantastic thing to derive from my post, to say the least. It could just be an extension of the "attack the messenger" opening salvo you seem to prefer. hard to say.

Originally posted by Monolith

I, on the other hand, understand that Steve has changed several rules over the last 18 months and that he cannot always remember to make the six updates in the FAQ.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Monolith

To use your example which you are attempting to throw back in my face,

Actually, i am just trying to clear up what i felt might be an inaccurate impression. The first couple seemed to be leading one to the conclusion that "monolith views official" as printed, in the faq and such. But the latter seems to extend it to also include a broader scope of things... "things Monolith thinks ought to be in print" or maybe just "things monolith thinks steve said at some point even if they are not in print or in the faq or in the erratta." and so forth.

 

regardless, when commented on which rules should be used in discussions, the notion of printed or online... something that has a publically accessible quality to it so that everyone can be on the same page seems very plausible and reasonable... but once you choose to include "things i heard" from any source, so that there is no common frame of reference, then you have gone well beyond such a plausible set.

 

Your first couple of points seemed to define the former, but the second seemed to expand it to reference what you heard even if not in print or faq or erratta and so forth... not commonly available.

 

If you see that as something that should not be discussed, or is not important, thats OK.

Originally posted by Monolith

DOJ's original policy was that Mind Control could be used without the Affects Real World advantage if the character was using it while Desolid (based upon certain sfx); and thus you see the write-up for the Ghost in the Beastiary as having that power. In the year that has since gone by DOJ changed that policy and ruled that you do need to put the Affects Real World Advantage of the Mind Control (that change was brought about when playtesters like my thought it was inbalancing). So what was legal a year ago is not legal today. The fact that over the last year Steve has forgotten to update the Beastiary errata (but did update the problem in the Millennium City errata) does not change the fact that the new rule is not valid.

So, the in print and commonly available resources say that it depends on FX and that both charging for the advantage and not charging for the advantage (as described in the HERO5 book) are permissable. Given the erratta, there are examples of both.

 

This however, should not be considered as official because somewhere you heard someone say that it wasn't.

 

Ok, i get this and can accept this as your view of official.

 

But it seems to be an exception to the notion of giving more priority to EXAMPLES in print or in erratta faq than other sources.

 

But, the point was to get you to clarify your scope of official and such in the light of those comments.

 

Thank you for that.

Originally posted by Monolith

I do not expect Steve Long to be perfect.

Has anoyone said they did?

Originally posted by Monolith

I understand that there are several hundreds of thousands of words written and that no one person can easily remember all of them.

Absolutely... has anoyone said they think he should?

Originally posted by Monolith

You, because of your dislike for the system, get a great deal of pleasure finding those mistakes and throwing them into everyone's face.

And now we have the obligatory "attack the messenger" parting shot.

 

It would be better if you could let your personal grudges against me give way to just discussion without needless pot shotting once in a while.

 

The goal was to get you to clear up your views on official, particularly after you chose to make it such a big deal in your posts.

 

Thanks for helping with that.

 

much appreciated.

[tesuji]

Well i haven't chimed in with my opinions so i will now.

 

Summary of what it seems to me to have been over...

 

Most everyone is cool with and expects new books to provide new rules and additions and expansions. That is not a problem.

 

Some people do not like it when new books provide erratta, changes to current rules, in the same vein. This gets particularly disagreeable when these rules are not in the FAQ/erratta for common availability.

 

So, would it be more or less preferrable if DOJ began doing something along these lines...

 

1. When true erratta, a change to how a previous rules was written (example requiring +5 adder for more than 1 effect in CE) then it is given its own sort of box, maybe a consistent square box with round edges or whatever, so it is clearly distinguished from addendum and is earmarked as erratta.

 

2. before any book goes to print, any items in the special boxes is added to the faq/erratta.

 

Now, before the fans get all up in arms about how DOj is pressed for time yahhdee yahdee... remember that the "this happens so rarely" argument also made cuts this out. if indeed the erratta is one or two items every 18 months, then it should not take too long to do it.

 

The bigg3est hit will be the graymatter time spent looking at the new thangs and thinking about whether it is addendum or erratta... which i think we all admit would be time well spent and something that should be considered.

 

Just an idea.

[Talon]

What I think is needed (and I might do after GenCon) is some sort of condensation of the FAQ which focuses on stuff you should know for character creation. Right now it's very hard to look through the FAQ for "stuff that I might want to know when making a character". I believe that it would be possible to present that information in a more friendly manner, and keep that updated as the FAQ changes.

[Agent X]

You know guys, there are plenty of Hero gamers who don't visit this website. When you guys say it's all good if it is in the FAQ, I just cringe. There are many, many players who will never read the FAQ (I think a lot of the posters on the board forget that not every gamer is a computer geek). That means that the problems I fear will not go away by placing every rules change in the FAQ, especially as the FAQ is not clearly constructed for such a purpose as already pointed out by another.

 

It's simple to me, characters built using only FRED as a source, should be absolutely legal.

 

A Point to consider about Dungeons and Dragons, at least in the old ADnD days - they had a billion and one rules supplements but I never remember them invalidating rules from their core rulebooks - anything that deviated from standard rules was "optional".

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

It's simple to me, characters built using only FRED as a source, should be absolutely legal.

We understand your position. The only part you keep failing to understand is that there are mistakes in FREd. In Change Enviroment, for example, It was Steve's intention that the power could only have 1 Combat Effect unless the GM ruled otherwise. The fact that Steve did not make this clear in FREd is why it was put in the FAQ.

 

Even though FREd was sitting around on a shelf for 2+ years it was still published in a hurry and certain things were overlooked. If FREd were being published today the playtesters would have had a chance to go over it with a fine-tooth comb and many of the FAQ clarifications would have been caught and added to the book before it went to print. As it is we must deal with an imperfect FREd. So ultimately it comes down to playing by the "written" rules (as given in the book) or playing by the "intended" rules (as clarified in the FAQ). In either event this will not change until an updated version of FREd is published.

 

And also while I do understand your point about everyone not having access to the FAQ, you, and the other people on this message boards, do. So when we are discussing the rules here we all have access to the same information; and when we are playing with people who do not we have the ability to tell them the new rules. That is a big part of the GM's job.