6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You Conceptualist' date=' You!!![/quote']

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

.............................

 

I asked Steve last night about whether he found anything really interesting in the 6E forums and he replied, "Rod - oh, yeah, absolutely! There was plenty of dross, but there were also some real gems, including a couple of ideas that were so good they practically took my breath away." Does that sound like someone who treated those threads as more symbol than substance?

 

...........................

 

 

I knew posting all that dross would be useful - it made those gems stand out nicely

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

He also printed a Rule in the book that says you can change the Rules.

 

 

I'd say you're doing an exemplary job of following the rules.

 

But what if I want to change the rule that says I can change the rules?

 

If I change the rule, then I'm changing the rules, but if I change that rule then I can't have changed the rules.............

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

But what if I want to change the rule that says I can change the rules?

 

If I change the rule, then I'm changing the rules, but if I change that rule then I can't have changed the rules.............

 

You Die. The Girl Dies. Everybody Dies.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It's not a link, but I believe that there are multiple 5e books that indicate that

 

20 Become a 10 Ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent

 

is okay, but

 

15 I am a 10 ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent, Inherent, Always On

 

is not okay.

 

The reason that Growth and Shrinking are not used to make things inherently Taller/Smaller is that they cause funny things to happen to the cost of said characters.

 

ie in 4th edition a rat has 45pts stuck into Shrinking Persistant 0 End. Which makes said Minor creature rather expensive (and counter intuitively so). So Steve decided that size would be both a Disadvantage and a bonus to DCV (for being small) Which made small critters a bit less spendy. ie the same rat would only have 30pts tied up in the -6 DCV and gets a Physical Limitation (tiny, light weight) which saves points.

 

Is it better? It is less intuitive to build things this way, as the natural inclination is to use Shrinking/Growth to change the size of things. Though building stuff that way does make creatures that 'feel' right in their point totals. (ie minor squishy things are a cheaper than a person)

 

BTW Pg 127 of 5th Rev gives the "official" ruling as to how to create Taller/Smaller character. The Appendix on pg 573 goes into more detail as to how said beings should be written up.

 

Now it is YOUR game and if in YOUR game you want to use Growth and Shrinking you are totally free to do so. I think that your players will like the official rules better (They are cheaper to buy which will tend to make Players like the official way).

 

Tasha

[Bismark]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well, as a 'Conceptualist' and unashamed (nay, proud!) 'Min-Maxer', I am perfectly OK with most of the announced 6E changes.

 

The one thing that would have had the hackles rising and the fangs appearing would have been getting rid of the SPD chart (which I have found over the years much less of a pain in the #### than having to worry about Initiative calculations, DEX Rank, Strike Rank or whatever that you get in other games - and I have played LOTS of other games...) - and the chart stays

 

The STUN lottery thingie that made the KA changes almost inevitable has not been an issue for me for over 20 years (since the last time I played CHAMPIONS, basically); I would be interested to see the knock-on effect on the Hit Location Chart (which I use in all my games as they are Fantasy/Sci-Fi with moderate 'grittiness').

 

As for the probable pricing - I happen to be in the privileged position of being able to write them off against tax under 'Research and Development' (one of the few joys of being in the typesetting/layout industry)

 

The final thing that makes it easier for me to deal with a new edition than some other people is that I currently have no HERO campaign which I am either running or playing in, having 'taken a year out' to recharge batteries and run something else (Mongoose RQ, in fact). I also do not have a huge legacy of characters that would need 'grandfathering' into 6E (unless you count the inch-thick pile of 2E CHAMPIONS characters sitting in a folder on my bookshelf - and they have obviously not been used for a while and are a bit 'sparse' compared to more modern designs, so they would be re-done from scratch if I was 'superheroing' again).

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The reason that Growth and Shrinking are not used to make things inherently Taller/Smaller is that they cause funny things to happen to the cost of said characters.

 

ie in 4th edition a rat has 45pts stuck into Shrinking Persistant 0 End. Which makes said Minor creature rather expensive (and counter intuitively so). So Steve decided that size would be both a Disadvantage and a bonus to DCV (for being small) Which made small critters a bit less spendy. ie the same rat would only have 30pts tied up in the -6 DCV and gets a Physical Limitation (tiny, light weight) which saves points.

 

Is it better? It is less intuitive to build things this way, as the natural inclination is to use Shrinking/Growth to change the size of things. Though building stuff that way does make creatures that 'feel' right in their point totals. (ie minor squishy things are a cheaper than a person)

 

BTW Pg 127 of 5th Rev gives the "official" ruling as to how to create Taller/Smaller character. The Appendix on pg 573 goes into more detail as to how said beings should be written up.

 

Now it is YOUR game and if in YOUR game you want to use Growth and Shrinking you are totally free to do so. I think that your players will like the official rules better (They are cheaper to buy which will tend to make Players like the official way).

 

Tasha

 

Not using Growth/Shrinking also allows you to pick and choose which aspects of size you specifically want without having to much around with another power.

 

You can build very tall light characters by just taking a Tall Disadvantage, and possibly some Strength, but if they're a Sheet Monster don't have to buy Knockback Resistance.

 

Mostly it opens things up conceptually by only have to take off the shelf what you need for any given build.

[Hierax]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hey, hopefully there will be a SIZE Characteristic in H6e that makes the whole Growth/Shrinking thing irrelevant.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The reason that Growth and Shrinking are not used to make things inherently Taller/Smaller is that they cause funny things to happen to the cost of said characters.

 

ie in 4th edition a rat has 45pts stuck into Shrinking Persistant 0 End. Which makes said Minor creature rather expensive (and counter intuitively so).

 

Yet a creature capable of becoming, and remaining, that size, and later changing back pays the same cost for Shrinking Persistant 0 End.

 

So Steve decided that size would be both a Disadvantage and a bonus to DCV (for being small) Which made small critters a bit less spendy. ie the same rat would only have 30pts tied up in the -6 DCV and gets a Physical Limitation (tiny' date=' light weight) which saves points. [/quote']

 

Maybe my Shrinking character should just buy +6 DCV with Side Effects for the added Physical Limitation, and my Growth character should buy a Multiform to a larger creature.

 

Is it better? It is less intuitive to build things this way' date=' as the natural inclination is to use Shrinking/Growth to change the size of things. Though building stuff that way does make creatures that 'feel' right in their point totals. (ie minor squishy things are a cheaper than a person)[/quote']

 

Minor squishy things should probably not have 10 STR, BOD, CON and PRE or 2 PD, 2 ED, 4 REC and 20 STUN. Take away 7 points for 3 STR, 14 for 3 BOD, 14 for a 3 CON and 7 for a 3 PRE and 45 - 42 = 3 points for being a squishy rat with the drawbacks, in addition to the advantages, of his small size.

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The reason that Growth and Shrinking are not used to make things inherently Taller/Smaller is that they cause funny things to happen to the cost of said characters.

 

ie in 4th edition a rat has 45pts stuck into Shrinking Persistant 0 End. Which makes said Minor creature rather expensive (and counter intuitively so). So Steve decided that size would be both a Disadvantage and a bonus to DCV (for being small) Which made small critters a bit less spendy. ie the same rat would only have 30pts tied up in the -6 DCV and gets a Physical Limitation (tiny, light weight) which saves points.

 

Is it better? It is less intuitive to build things this way, as the natural inclination is to use Shrinking/Growth to change the size of things. Though building stuff that way does make creatures that 'feel' right in their point totals. (ie minor squishy things are a cheaper than a person)

 

BTW Pg 127 of 5th Rev gives the "official" ruling as to how to create Taller/Smaller character. The Appendix on pg 573 goes into more detail as to how said beings should be written up.

 

Now it is YOUR game and if in YOUR game you want to use Growth and Shrinking you are totally free to do so. I think that your players will like the official rules better (They are cheaper to buy which will tend to make Players like the official way).

 

Tasha

 

I knew the rules existed, I couldn't have said where. And the fact that I'm fine with someone using either method isn't my point. I understand the advantages of both. But I am not willing to make a judgment that "cheaper is better" or "intuitive is better".

 

My point is that because the RAW says "Use the less intuitive, but cheaper method; do not use the intuitive method" the RAW does make the judgment. That I'm willing to ignore it is immaterial. The comment was made that there is more of a feeling of there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things that didn't used to exist. And this is an example of that. The RAW says one of the two methods is the one to use. It adds specifically to there being a "right way" feeling. I may be an agent of chaos, but I don't have the influence that the RAW has. I've had to draw upon my chaotic tendencies more specifically because the number of rules has increased.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I've always preferred to use Growth and Shrinking since it seems more intuitive, there's more granularity and the Powers package allot of things in a simple to use format. The Inherent Limitation seems costume made for this purpose. It's not perfect but it felt easier and more useful than the other while it might be cheaper in some ways. And you can always use limitation to cut things off powers if it doesn't fit the concept like Tall but Light Guy could have Growth: Does npt provide knockback resistance. Its just fits how I think better.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

My point is that because the RAW says "Use the less intuitive' date=' but cheaper method; do not use the intuitive method" the RAW does make the judgment.[/quote']

 

I'd like to take a moment to point out a little fact here.

 

I find the 5E rules more intuitive for permanently sized creatures. not less.

 

Now YOU'RE the one telling us what is the absolute right way. Don't tell me /I/ should be using Size Power;0ENDPersistentAlways on because /YOU/ find it more intuitive.

 

 

I certainly don't. But hey, thanks.

(or, you know, I'm free to ignore your ruling... but then I wouldn't be using your desired RAW. . . . . .)

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'd like to take a moment to point out a little fact here.

 

I find the 5E rules more intuitive for permanently sized creatures. not less.

 

Now YOU'RE the one telling us what is the absolute right way. Don't tell me /I/ should be using Size Power;0ENDPersistentAlways on because /YOU/ find it more intuitive.

 

 

I certainly don't. But hey, thanks.

(or, you know, I'm free to ignore your ruling... but then I wouldn't be using your desired RAW. . . . . .)

 

I'm with GA on this one.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hey' date=' hopefully there will be a SIZE Characteristic in H6e that makes the whole Growth/Shrinking thing irrelevant.[/quote']

 

That would actually be an "oh cool!"

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm with GA on this one.

 

 

ONLY if one uses the templates in the Bestiary and only because I don't have mess with persistent etc. otherwise I'm with the old way. its just simpler to have a size changing power to make creature, you know, a different size.

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'd like to take a moment to point out a little fact here.

 

I find the 5E rules more intuitive for permanently sized creatures. not less.

 

Now YOU'RE the one telling us what is the absolute right way. Don't tell me /I/ should be using Size Power;0ENDPersistentAlways on because /YOU/ find it more intuitive.

 

 

I certainly don't. But hey, thanks.

(or, you know, I'm free to ignore your ruling... but then I wouldn't be using your desired RAW. . . . . .)

 

Please feel free to disagree about which is more intuitive, or anything. But please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was...

 

And the fact that I'm fine with someone using either method isn't my point. I understand the advantages of both. But I am not willing to make a judgment that "cheaper is better" or "intuitive is better".

 

I DON'T CARE WHICH METHOD IS USED. And I don't think the rulebook should either.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I said we (the Pro-COM crowd) offered a compromise (to the anti-COM crowd) and they spat it back in our faces. BTW' date=' read my sig.[/quote']

Optional stats is not a viable compromise, at least in a main book. Tossed into a book of optional rules, sure.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I asked Steve last night about whether he found anything really interesting in the 6E forums and he replied, "Rod - oh, yeah, absolutely! There was plenty of dross, but there were also some real gems, including a couple of ideas that were so good they practically took my breath away." Does that sound like someone who treated those threads as more symbol than substance?

 

Whether it is or not is not what I was referring to. I'll try one last time. I'm talking about PR, about how this "leak" was presented. Not the process he came to the conclusions, not the way the forums work, not the discussions about 6th edition, but only how the presentation was done and how it works in terms of stirring up interest in the product.

 

To use your example, if he'd taken one of those "that blew me away" ideas and put it out (or several), then we'd have not just a few wow factors to take away (and while a few might consider the things listed as amazing or "wow" most don't, and some are outright hostile - which I can't imagine comes as a surprise to Mr Long) and get a better feel that our discussion impacted what he decided.

 

Because he didn't we don't get that feeling and the effort wasn't as effective as it might have been. I'm not attacking anyone personally here, I'm not kicking your dog, there's no reason for you or anyone else to get defensive. We're talking about rules for a game we play for fun, not personal issues or some deep weighty philosophical reality. This isn't religion or politics. It's a game. And to take it further, I'm talking about how that was presented and how it didn't work as well as it might have, had it been done differently.

 

Why must people take thing so seriously and seem to be so emotionally involved on a message board about a game I cannot understand. It makes people say things they'd never say in person... and some things they'd ignore or even agree with in person instead they react negatively to. It's just odd to me.

[Guest steamteck]

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']

 

That's a darn shame. it sure would have solved lots of disagreements. I'm looking forward to the advanced players guide. it could be kind of like the writers saving throw as well as maybe providing some very cool niche rules.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Regarding the size-changing powers, it always seemed odd to me that the very book which introduced "inherent" as a modifier then strongly suggested (and in all source material avoided using) it for its most obvious application.

 

The only reason growth and shrinking causes any cost problems is because of how they are built and cost - especially shrinking which is absurdly expensive and beneficial. Change that and the problems are at least reduced to a tolerable level for those who find them intolerable.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Humm.. interesting.

 

We still get 3-4+ options for every How Do I question here on the boards. People are always offering up ways of creating various House Rules or manipulating Core Rules to get specfic effects in a given game.

 

This is a tanget worth exploring, what caused that shift in perception and/or mood? At least in your eyes.

 

I wanted to give my response some thought.

 

Honestly and with no offense to anyone its more the mood on the board than any one thing I could point too in the books and say "That's it!" There's more confrontation and acrimony over disagreement and a seeming obsession with getting things "right" whatever that means. Allot of it started up or at least became much more noticeable when the 6th edition forums opened up and kind of spilled over. And we got threads with people being snarky and insulting about trivia like the "right" way to build a Taser as the entire board has become NGD and every thread was about should Married Gay Aborted Fetuses be allowed to carry concealed firearms. Everyone had to right and anyone that thought differently was mentally or emotionally deficient in some manner.

 

As far as the books goes there does seem to be drift towards "official" and less on modularity. I would have preferred to see more toolkitting and options in 6th edition without so much being dropped. I'm holding that these Toolkitting notes among other things will alleviate some of my concerns about the direction in tone Hero System is taking but only time will tell.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Please feel free to disagree about which is more intuitive' date=' or anything. [i']But please don't put words in my mouth.[/i] What I said was...

 

I DON'T CARE WHICH METHOD IS USED. And I don't think the rulebook should either.

 

Actually it makes a difference. There should be an Orthodox way to write certain things up (ie Taller/Smaller characters, Regen, instant change) for consistency in the Published supplements. I want to see weapons written up consistently no matter what supplement I purchase. It would be silly and frustrating as a player to have 2 supplements where the same weapon is written up differently. Also to have one book have a hawk written up with 3 levels of Shrinking with all of the limits and advantages, and the next one having the same creature written up with levels with DCV would stink. So there should be firm guildlines as to how certain things are done. Just to keep the system modular for no other reason.

 

Keep in mind that many player learn how to create characters by looking at published ones. Keeping a certain level of "how its done" is good for the game. It cuts down on the confusion for new players.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Please feel free to disagree about which is more intuitive' date=' or anything. [i']But please don't put words in my mouth.[/i] What I said was...

 

 

 

I DON'T CARE WHICH METHOD IS USED. And I don't think the rulebook should either.

 

The rules mostly have to draw a line and say "this is standard" and "this is not"

 

 

Knockback is Optional - yet almost universally accepted as standard.

 

the book doesn't say you Can't do it your way. So, you know, that tells me the option is still there.

 

Amazing that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I wanted to give my response some thought.

 

Honestly and with no offense to anyone its more the mood on the board than any one thing I could point too in the books and say "That's it!" There's more confrontation and acrimony over disagreement and a seeming obsession with getting things "right" whatever that means. Allot of it started up or at least became much more noticeable when the 6th edition forums opened up and kind of spilled over. And we got threads with people being snarky and insulting about trivia like the "right" way to build a Taser as the entire board has become NGD and every thread was about should Married Gay Aborted Fetuses be allowed to carry concealed firearms. Everyone had to right and anyone that thought differently was mentally or emotionally deficient in some manner.

 

As far as the books goes there does seem to be drift towards "official" and less on modularity. I would have preferred to see more toolkitting and options in 6th edition without so much being dropped. I'm holding that these Toolkitting notes among other things will alleviate some of my concerns about the direction in tone Hero System is taking but only time will tell.

 

I figured it was more boards and not the books themselves. Hmm... Gonna give this some thought before I pursue it further. Thanks for the repsonse.

[tarragon]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hey' date=' hopefully there will be a SIZE Characteristic in H6e that makes the whole Growth/Shrinking thing irrelevant.[/quote']

 

Oh geez I hope not. I brought this up way back in the 6E forums...

 

Basically being larger or smaller than normal have upsides and downsides which would make them unusual for characteristics.

 

Assuming a SIZE characteristic is defined as a smaller number is a smaller character it's got a few problems. If there's any game effect for changing that size characteristic shrinking is ODD as no other characteristic adds value as it gets smaller or goes negative. Getting larger has those can't fit and too heavy problems and no other characteristic has a downside as it gets larger.

 

Also, what would the cost be. If size effects other characteristics so that we get effects like large means strong and small means hard to hit than means we've just re-added figureds. If it doesn't effect other characteristics than there isn't much value to buying up a SIZE char so it would have to be cheap, that would mean it could be crazy cheap to use adjustment powers on it.