6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

He mentioned the Sixth Edition Technical Advisory Committee in chat who, apparently, are a group of people who live outside of Steve's head. He's been pretty cagey on exactly who they are, though.

 

The discussion here will probably have no bearing on anything Steve does with the final product; there was a 14 month period while the 6e forums were open for that.

 

I know that nothing that I say here will make any difference, but I still feel the need to voice my opinions (Which I also did on the 6ed boards)

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Normals games sometimes use the StunX when the Players and Gm don't want to deal with another roll.

 

*raises hand*

 

I haven't used the hit location chart in normal games for years nor has anyone gm I've played under lately.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'll add 2 words ...........Instant Change........

 

here where 2 powers that yes could be done using others but all the hoops you had to go through to do it(granted in HD it is just a few more clicks)but here is where the tool kit did not need to be used to show it awesomeness

and for regeneration you had to still have special rules just for it made up so you could do it

 

I saw this as a case of over complicating the plumbing for no reason other than maybe show off

 

I have one word for you.... Regeneration... 'nuff said?

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've never played in a normal level game that didn't use the hit location chart.

 

I haven't either, though our current games have had a player that has been agitating to go to a regular stun mult roll. One cannot assume how people will use the optional rules. Like I have never played in a Champions game that used Hit Location, but apparently there are people here who do so.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

*raises hand*

 

I haven't used the hit location chart in normal games for years nor has anyone gm I've played under lately.

 

I think the bonuses and penalties are too harsh so I use my own idea I suggested on the boards earlier of trading minuses for guaranteed extra damage classes to locations using the same 2/1 scale skill levels do. ( Hm. Or at least did. I dunno now.)

 

I run a multiverse multicampaign so the same rules get used for heroic and superheroic universes.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I have one word for you.... Regeneration... 'nuff said?

 

I never had that big a problem with 5e Regen. A bit clunky but it worked in play. But then I'll admit I don't use it very much at all.

[Catseye]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

*raises hand*

 

I haven't used the hit location chart in normal games for years nor has anyone gm I've played under lately.

 

I've only ever used the hit location chart for 'called shots' in heroic level games.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I am really surprised at how much sturm and drang is being generated over such a minor change. It's not like any skill in the game used it. No real mechanics were behind this stat. It was not really used.

 

Do you know how tired I get of being told that I never used COM, or the mechainics associated with it?

 

COM did have a function, people did use it, and I imagine that people will continue using it despite it's removal from 6E.

 

The Talent is quite adequate and I imagine that there will be levels of beauty that can be purchased there. so one can go from decent beauty to heart attack just by purchasing the talent. I also imagine that there will be mechanics that will integrate the talent into the game officially, and not as a kind of half baked ruler for one's appearance. Perhaps there will also be rules for being extremely ugly too.

 

Well, the talent is called Striking Appearance, not Really Pretty. I would imagine the rules are going to be something along the lines of '+1 to roll where the character's described appearance would play a part.' So looking really scary would add to Interrogate, but have no effect on Seduction.

 

Now I wasn't for removing Com from the game, but now that it is happening. I don't see what the real problem is.

 

Tasha

 

Well, if you never used COM in the game, then of course you wouldn't. For those of us who actually did use it, it will be missed...

 

Or grandfathered back in.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

When Lord Liaden described Striking Appearance as optional, I think he was trying to convey the concept that you don't need to buy Striking Appearance for a beautiful character if you don't see that character's beauty having a game effect.

 

There has been nothing that Steve has said in chats or on the boards that would indicate that Striking Appearance is anymore optional than any other Talent.

 

And as for running games where a character's appearance makes no difference, GMs can do that in 5E. They can just drop COM as a Characteristic or simply ignore its effects.

 

But there's one problem with that: Beauty - or lack thereof - has an effect, period.

 

Studies have shown that attractive people get more - and more positive - attention from salespeople. They are rated as being more sucessful based soley upon visual appearance. Many people have no problem speaking to a person of average appearance, but get tounge-tied around someone who is really attractive.

 

So saying that someone can be beautiful - and yet that beauty has no effect - is, well, ridiculous.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually' date=' I suspect it boils down to one thing: Steve Long did not like COM as a Characteristic and no was able to convince him it should be kept. No more, no less.[/quote']

 

If that's all that was behind the descision, I will be highly disappointed in Mr. Long.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Bah - why use logic? What is it about pizza you do not like?

 

Hero is a shapeshifter, able to become what you want it to be. Using the pizza example if it is the tomatoes that turn you off, we can make it with just cheese. If it is the bread crust we can make that with pastry. If you don't like cheese, tomato or bread we can make you a roast dinner.

 

As to COM, well, I'm not sure what people think you can do with COM that you can not do as well in other ways, for example as a talent or some other build. COM always had very limited system uses - it was an occasional modifier to interaction rolls. Of course people found lots of other uses for it, but as they were never core Hero, they probably did not get considered.

 

It was also massively confusing - was COM universal or relative. What did it actually mean? Did you have high COM because of your gorgeous hair or your healthy physique? What if what you had to offer was not what the target wanted? Did it work cross species?

 

The argument that the complimentary roll dealt with that didn't work for me - all it did was randomise your bonus, and you can build a random bonus (+1 Interaction Skill Level on 14-) anyway, and doing it that way gives you far more fine control over WHAT you are getting.

 

For those of you who really can not stand to see it go, can I suggest you reverse engineer it*? For every +1 Intereaction Skill Level attributable to an aspect of your appearance, you get a notional 5 points. Add them up and that is your COM for a beholder who appreciates all you have to offer.

 

Easy as pie. Pizza pie.

 

 

 

*Given that this seems a major sticking point for some I'd be surprised if COM did not resurface in a side bar or supplement.

 

Wow.

 

I believe I answered this one what, five, six times in the 6E threads? COM does something just by being there.

 

If you don't see it, then likely nothing I can say will make you see it. You either get it, or you don't.

[ideasmith]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

During Steve Long's chat of Wednesday, June 3, Steve revealed several details of HERO System elements which will definitely change, or not change, for the upcoming Sixth Edition. People who were at the chat have responded to individual questions regarding those changes here on the forums, so the information has been filtering out piecemeal to the general community; but I thought it would be helpful to post all of it in one place for people who can't wait until Sixth Edition is published.

 

None of what follows is speculation. It's all been confirmed by Steve Long as definitely happening, although in some cases Steve didn't elaborate on specifics. As new information comes to light I'll add to or clarify this list. I welcome anyone else who wishes to add data that they're aware of to this thread, but only if it's been confirmed by Steve or another DoJ staff member.

 

 

Thank you.

 

And so, on to 6E:

 

----------------------

 

 

The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains' date=' and it will continue to be "roll-low."[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

Sounds good.

 

Movement will continue to be measured per Phase.

 

Sounds good.

 

All measurements will be given in meters. There will be no use of "hexes" or any other mapping arrangement in 6E.

 

Sounds good.

 

Comeliness will no longer be one of the Characteristics. It's being replaced with a Talent' date=' Striking Appearance, which a given group can choose to use in their game if they want a character's appearance to have a mechanical effect.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

All the other Characteristics will remain' date=' but none of them will be "Figured," i.e. derived from other Characteristics. They'll all start with a base value that must be bought up separately. The costs of some of them have been "tweaked" -- no further details yet.[/quote']

 

As long a the costs of CON and BODY are reduced accordingly.

 

OCV' date=' DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately.[/quote']

 

As long as the costs of DEX and EGO are reduced accordingly. And especially if this results in all remaining Primary Characteristics having the same cost.

 

Suggested starting point totals will be raised to compensate for the change to Characteristics -- no specifics yet.

 

Sounds good.

 

Perception will still be based on INT.

 

Sounds good.

 

Leaping will no longer be derived from Strength -- it will start at a base amount for all characters' date=' as with Running and Swimming.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

Skills will still be calculated from CHAR/5' date=' but there will be an optional "Toolkitting" note about changing that if desired.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

Other Toolkitting notes will appear throughout the rules -- no further details on those.

 

Sounds Grrreat.

 

Seduction Skill will be renamed Charm.

 

Sounds good.

 

No new Skills will be added' date=' although a couple have been "tweaked" (no more details yet).[/quote']

 

Sound good.

 

Package Deal will be renamed Template

 

Sounds good.

 

Some new Powers have been added' date=' and others have been removed. The only one mentioned is Find Weakness, which is being removed. There will be no official way to reduce Defenses below 1/2 as with Armor Piercing.[/quote']

 

I won't miss Find Weakness. The rest depends on the details. Is Lack of Weakness staying in?

 

Adjustment Powers have been significantly reworked -- no further details yet.

 

There is plenty of room for improvement here. Whether the changes are actually an improvement remains to be seen.

 

Energy Blast and Killing Attack will still be separate forms of Damage' date=' as they are in 5E.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages.

 

So killing attacks will finally live up to their name? About time.

 

You will be able to apply your Normal Defenses to the STUN damage of a Killing Attack whether you have any Resistant Defenses or not.

 

Sounds good.

 

Nothing has changed about the way STR adds to Hand-To-Hand Killling Attack damage.

 

I can live with that.

 

Increased reach for larger-than-normal beings and weapons will not necessarily require Stretching -- no further details yet.

 

No opinion.

 

The method of Adding Damage is supposed to be simplified -- no further details yet.

 

Sounds good.

 

The Multipower and VPP Frameworks will remain' date=' but Elemental Control is being replaced by a new Limitation, Unified Power (no value given). Aside from GM oversight there will be no restrictions on what Unified Power can be applied to.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

Damage Shield is going to be "different" -- no details yet.

 

Depends on the details.

 

There will be another' date=' more granular way to make a Power ECV-targeted than using the BOECV Advantage. No specifics given, but it involves breaking the Advantage into its separate components (i.e. ECV Attack Roll, Line Of Sight, etc.) and "reassembling" them to make them more flexible.

 

Sounds good.

 

Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system.

 

Sounds good.

 

Disadvantages are being renamed Complications' date=' and Psychological Limitations will become Psychological Complications.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

 

There will be a single index' date=' printed in both 6E rulebooks, with a letter code before each number to indicate which book it refers to.[/quote']

 

Sounds good.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

For those of us who actually did use it, it will be missed...

 

Or grandfathered back in.

 

You're wrong. I used COM but I doubt I'll miss it and I won't be grandfathering it back in.

 

You do not speak for everyone who used COM.

[Catseye]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I never had that big a problem with 5e Regen. A bit clunky but it worked in play. But then I'll admit I don't use it very much at all.

 

To be most playable, I would suggest that a game system SHOULD front load the hard things to build time as much as possible.

 

I'd go so far as to suggest as this might be one of the most important game-design failures of Hero in later revisions. The sheer mass of bookeeping required during play-time.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I take it then you didn't see the ant-COM crowd's agruments in the great COM debate back in the Characteristics thread of the 6th Edition forum?

 

We (the Pro-COM crowd) even offered the honorable compromise of making either the stat or the Talent optional but they spat that right back in our faces.

 

Repeatedly. And with a fair amount of hostility. "No one uses COM so it must GO!" was the mantra, no matter how many of us pointed out that we, in fact, did use COM.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it.

 

Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling.

 

I think the reason that Marcus feels... kicked while's down, so to speak... is that eventually the pro-COM group settled around a 'let's compromise and make COM optional' stance. The anti-COM crowd stayed pretty vehemently "No, it must GO!" to the end.

 

So when Mr. Long ignored the proposed compromise to agree with those who would NOT compromise, it makes us feel... ignored, at best.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I suppose those who liked the COM characteristic are horrifically ungrateful not to thank you profusely for your generous offer to permit us to continue its use . However' date=' being the ungrateful wretch that I am, I don't see how "maybe COM could stay as an optional rule" is any more a "reasonable compromise" than "maybe we could add a statement that those who don't like COM should ignore it in their games". Both say "use my rule, but grant permission to the Great Unwashed who don't like it to do things differently".[/quote']

 

Try it again without the sarcasm.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think the reason that Marcus feels... kicked while's down, so to speak... is that eventually the pro-COM group settled around a 'let's compromise and make COM optional' stance. The anti-COM crowd stayed pretty vehemently "No, it must GO!" to the end.

 

So when Mr. Long ignored the proposed compromise to agree with those who would NOT compromise, it makes us feel... ignored, at best.

 

Steve made the decision he felt was best for the Hero System. You disagree. Does anything more really need to be said?

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This thread is starting to sound like something from an MMO message board. If you love COM so much, just keep using it. This is a pen and paper game. You have the option.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think the reason that Marcus feels... kicked while's down, so to speak... is that eventually the pro-COM group settled around a 'let's compromise and make COM optional' stance. The anti-COM crowd stayed pretty vehemently "No, it must GO!" to the end.

 

So when Mr. Long ignored the proposed compromise to agree with those who would NOT compromise, it makes us feel... ignored, at best.

 

But it wasn't the anti-COM people the pro-COM people needed to convince, or negotiate with, or compromise with. It was Steve Long we needed to convince.

 

I'm honestly not sure what you thought a compromise would achieve.

 

I'm with Rod. I was pro-COM, but I likely won't be adding the stat back in either. I'm fairly certain that whatever the Talent ends up being will be at least as useful as COM, and to use the Characteristic will likely take a bunch of back conversion work that frankly I don't want to do.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Optional stats is not a viable compromise' date=' at least in a main book. Tossed into a book of optional rules, sure.[/quote']

 

Now you see, if someone had said this in the great COM debate, I would have said "Oh. I see your point then." And it might have saved a great deal of trouble arguing for a compromise.

 

But in the Great COM Debate, that was never said, so I stand by our side as the reasonable one. WE were willing to move toward a compromise, while the anti-COM crowd was NOT.

 

A sucessful negotiation implies a conculsion where everyone got at least some of what they wanted. Thus far, I've gotten precious little that I wanted, quite a bit of 'I don't care either way,' and a good chunk of DO NOT WANT.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' if you never used COM in the game, then of course you wouldn't. For those of us who actually [i']did [/i]use it, it will be missed...

 

Or grandfathered back in.

Here's my prediction: Ten years from now, when Comeliness hasn't been an official part of the Hero system for a decade, Hero players are still going to be using numbers to describe their characters' attractiveness.

 

GM: "How much Striking Appearance did you buy for Miss Justice?"

 

Player: "I paid 4 Points, so she has an 18 COM."

 

The numbers may mutate to Olympic-style 1.0 - 10 as guys do rating women ("Man, Angelina Jolie's an 11!"), but relative numerical ratings aren't going to go away. It's a shorthand people understand naturally.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Of note: He didn't present anything that made you go "WOW". He presented several things that made a lot of the rest of us go "WOW". Not having presented anything that you consider to be cool isn't the same thing as not having presented anything that is cool.

 

I think what he was saying was "If Steve had posted, 'I saw this in the threads and it made me go WOW..."

 

I don't think he means what you think he means.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

But there's one problem with that: Beauty - or lack thereof - has an effect' date=' [i']period.[/i]

 

Studies have shown that attractive people get more - and more positive - attention from salespeople. They are rated as being more sucessful based soley upon visual appearance. Many people have no problem speaking to a person of average appearance, but get tounge-tied around someone who is really attractive.

 

So saying that someone can be beautiful - and yet that beauty has no effect - is, well, ridiculous.

 

Of course that beauty will be now designated with the Striking Appearance talent. Which I am sure that you can buy levels of to be anywhere from slightly more attractive to OMG even though you are not the gender that I am attracted to, I am head over heels in lust with you. Or just the opposite if I want to be ugly. Different place on the Character sheet, Same functionality, Stronger tie into the interaction skills. Good Change

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If someone had to choose between two attacks' date=' both of which do the same STUN on average but one of which does more BODY on average, why would they go with the one that does less BODY?[/quote']

 

Not to mention the little detail that only one of the dice has to come up above average to do 150% of average...