6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The one thing that could actually make me cool with the reduction of the STUN Multiplier on Killing Attacks is if their cost were to be reduced to reflect the loss of effectiveness.

 

'82 - today : average in 12 DC Normal is 42 STUN and 12 BODY; average on 12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN. That tiny difference increase in Body compared to that sharp decrease in the amount of Stun makes Killing Attacks look no where near the equivalent of Normal attacks.

 

But, if the cost of 1d6 K were reduced to 10 points, so 1d6K now = 2 DC (not 3). Then 12 DC Killing is 6d6 K. The average damage is suddenly 21 BODY and 42 STUN. Compared to the Normal Attack, the Stun is clearly comparable, and the Body looks more like it could, well, kill. The theoretical maximum (108 Stun and 36 BODY) instead of (120 STUN and 24 BODY) but by increasing the number of dice involved (7 instead of 5), the likelihood of it decreases.

[Hierax]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Or Size as a Power, Steve Long already took a rough stab at it in Digital Hero.

[jtelson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You Die. The Girl Dies. Everybody Dies.

 

That's my Lochnar you...!

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

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.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Ok. Just caught up on the thread. There's one thought I have on the whole issue of what Steve and DoJ decide to do or not do with the Hero System:

 

Without them, it would be long DEAD, with only the 4th Edition and earlier material for people to play with. Geeze people, do you think Steve and company is really out to get us? Even if you decide to skip 6th Edition, the company has given us a TON more material for 5th than any other version of the game has ever had. All of it pretty darned decent quality, too.

 

I've been on the boards here through like four or five incarnations of BBS software. This company has NEVER acted like one which doesn't take its fan base into careful consideration. The bottom line is, you cannot build a game system by a committee of a zillion ravenous fanboys. At some point, someone has to step up and decide what the official rule is going to be, and implement it. Guess what: YOU didn't get that job. YOU didn't invest your money and your time into it to the level that the folks running the show did. When you do, then maybe you can run around being butt hurt about it, but I swear some of the folks in this thread are taking these changes way too seriously. Not a large number, but the more vocal of the crowd are just plain irritating.

 

/rant

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The one thing that could actually make me cool with the reduction of the STUN Multiplier on Killing Attacks is if their cost were to be reduced to reflect the loss of effectiveness.

 

'82 - today : average in 12 DC Normal is 42 STUN and 12 BODY; average on 12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN. That tiny difference increase in Body compared to that sharp decrease in the amount of Stun makes Killing Attacks look no where near the equivalent of Normal attacks.

 

But, if the cost of 1d6 K were reduced to 10 points, so 1d6K now = 2 DC (not 3). Then 12 DC Killing is 6d6 K. The average damage is suddenly 21 BODY and 42 STUN. Compared to the Normal Attack, the Stun is clearly comparable, and the Body looks more like it could, well, kill. The theoretical maximum (108 Stun and 36 BODY) instead of (120 STUN and 24 BODY) but by increasing the number of dice involved (7 instead of 5), the likelihood of it decreases.

 

If someone had to choose between two attacks, 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?

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Geeze people' date=' do you think Steve and company is really out to get us?[/quote']

 

I bet he was after Old Man Walters' abandoned gold mine on the back forty of his ranch... and would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darn meddlin' Gamers!!

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I bet he was after Old Man Walters' abandoned gold mine on the back forty of his ranch... and would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darn meddlin' Gamers!!

 

Zoinks!

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The one thing that could actually make me cool with the reduction of the STUN Multiplier on Killing Attacks is if their cost were to be reduced to reflect the loss of effectiveness.

 

'82 - today : average in 12 DC Normal is 42 STUN and 12 BODY; average on 12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

12DC Normal: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN

 

5er, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 120 STUN.

 

6e, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Zoinks!

 

Jinkies!

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

12DC Normal: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN

 

5er, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 120 STUN.

 

6e, 12DC Killing: Max 24 BODY, Max 72 STUN.

 

What are the averages between the new and the old Killing?

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

My opinion on the changes in Killing Attack pretty much comes down to "I may tweak it in my campaigns, but in convention games, OK." Which was pretty much my opinion of KAs as they were in 5th.

 

The downside of KAs was that I had to buy Damage Reduction or very high defenses for really bullet proof / military weapon proof characters in convention games, which for me didn't just mean Supers. In my home campaign, I had easy enough house rules to avoid the extremes of the Stun Lotto.

 

Now the Stun Lotto is no longer a major issue. Defenses can be purchased with the average stun done by an xDC normal attack in mind, and the chance a lucky roll with a Killing Attack will end the fight too early is reduced. KAs remain deadly and dangerous in settings with low or no resistant defenses, (and possibly in settings using Hit Locations, depending on how Steve goes with that) while in settings where they shouldn't overwhelm Normal Attacks (Supers, Wild Martial Arts, Giant Monsters) they become more a way to do Body than Stun.

 

They were too good a deal for their cost. Now they're not. It's not the way I'd do it, but it looks like it will work.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I would say 12.5 per die would around the right cost with the what has been done(I know it should be a whole number and at multiples of 5 but as it stands KA'a have been nerfed so maybe the price should take a hit)

 

or maybe make the stun multiplier 1d6+1 and leave in the normal def also protects

 

I just see that the meter has swung too far to the other side in this regard

of course this can also be addressed in what suggested levels of defense should be considered for your game

which means overhauling even more stuff

 

 

 

The one thing that could actually make me cool with the reduction of the STUN Multiplier on Killing Attacks is if their cost were to be reduced to reflect the loss of effectiveness.

 

'82 - today : average in 12 DC Normal is 42 STUN and 12 BODY; average on 12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN. That tiny difference increase in Body compared to that sharp decrease in the amount of Stun makes Killing Attacks look no where near the equivalent of Normal attacks.

 

But, if the cost of 1d6 K were reduced to 10 points, so 1d6K now = 2 DC (not 3). Then 12 DC Killing is 6d6 K. The average damage is suddenly 21 BODY and 42 STUN. Compared to the Normal Attack, the Stun is clearly comparable, and the Body looks more like it could, well, kill. The theoretical maximum (108 Stun and 36 BODY) instead of (120 STUN and 24 BODY) but by increasing the number of dice involved (7 instead of 5), the likelihood of it decreases.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

What are the averages between the new and the old Killing?

 

Normal : 12 Body 42 Stun

 

5e : 14 Body 37.333 Stun

6e : 14 Body 28 Stun

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I pretty much agree with Oddhat. its a decent change. Its better for my purposes if not the brilliant innovative solution everyone dreamed off. You sometimes simple solutions are just great.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Normal : 12 Body 42 Stun

 

5e : 14 Body 37.333 Stun

6e : 14 Body 28 Stun

 

OK, thanks. So, it basically evens out the Stun but keeps Killing at a slightly higher average Body. Seems reasonable.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

By the way: Does anyone know if Sidekick for 6th will have the combat rules, at least minus the optional ones? (I'm assuming yes, but you know what they say about assuming.)

 

I don't think that I'll have the budget for a full game right off the bat, especially with the two book format, but I'm inclined to grab a PDF or printed Sidekick for 6th.

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

What are the averages between the new and the old Killing?

 

"Old"

12 DC Killing (AKA 4d6 K), w/1d6-1 STUN Mult., is 14 BODY and 37 STUN.

 

"New"

Reducing the stun multiple to 1/2d6 makes the average 14 BODY and 28 STUN.

 

The change is apparently designed to make the maximums line-up, to address this alleged Stun Lotto problem, regardless of the fact that it makes the average roll noticeably less potent.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

except now the average difference is +2 body for a killing attack

vs +14 stun for a normal attack

 

by changing the stun multiplier and adding how much def goes against a killing attacks it throws a wench into how things interact

to keep things in perspective suggested defenses will also have to change

 

while killing attacks should be used to to kill or destroy things what has happened now swings killing attacks to being near useless

 

 

 

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']

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The change is apparently designed to make the maximums line-up' date=' to address this alleged Stun Lotto problem, regardless of the fact that it makes the average roll noticeably less potent.[/quote']

Yeah, but knocking people out isn't the purpose of killing attacks. It just means characters shouldn't use killing attacks unless they're trying to kill the target.

[Kenn]

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']

 

Well, if they're playing in a Champions game, and their super hero has a code versus killing "complication" they the attack that's less likely to kill but with similar "subduing" power would be more desirable.

 

If they're playing a axeman in a Fantasy Game, I'd expect them to take the killing damage weapon. However, if playing a staff wielding monk, I'd expect them to take the normal damage weapon.

 

I guess that's my problem. I've been playing with grown-ups for so long, that I've actually gotten accustomed to people using what's appropriate to the character they're playing. I haven't had to deal with the players who tweak their characters to fit their preferred game mechanics.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Yeah' date=' but knocking people out isn't the purpose of killing attacks. It just means characters shouldn't use killing attacks unless they're trying to kill the target.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, the old randomness was actually pretty realistic. Sometimes people just get knocked out by a killing attack, whereas other times, people just keep going and going with horrendous wounds.

 

I think there may be some valid concern that under the new ruling, if someone is using a killing attack -- and there are many genres where that's the default type of attack -- the default behavior will be "keep fighting right up until death." Which is not realistic.

 

So, you buy up the stun multiple, but with the narrow range on the rolls, you're actually just swinging things the other way toward knocking folks out short of killing them.

 

Some folks like the mechanic to be "sometimes you die, sometimes you get knocked out." And that's a really cool mechanic for a lot of non-supers genres.

 

So, I can see where folks are concerned that the balance here is kind of aimed at one kind of campaign at the expense of others.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Normal : 12 Body 42 Stun

 

5e : 14 Body 37.333 Stun

6e : 14 Body 28 Stun

 

Which makes the point that I and others have been trying to make about the nerf being too harsh.

 

in a normals game ( DC 6 attacks)

5e : 7 Body 17.5 stun

6e : 7 Body 14 stun

 

This means that a person in plate mail (rDef 8. PD6) will take 0 stun on average in 6th edition and still take 0 body at most they will take 7 stun at best on a max roll. which is quite broken IMHO.

 

or lets take a person in Brigandine armor (rDef 5. PD 6) will take 3 stun 2 body on average and 7 stun and 7 body at maximum. In 5th edition the same person would take 24 stun with an average body roll and a x5 location.

 

This is totally fracking broken! This breaks normal games totally! The BEST part of Hero in a normals game was the fact that most of the time you knock out your opposition instead of killing them. Death was still a possiblity, but was rare. Now normal games are much more deadly and their combats take a LOT longer.

 

Perhaps 1/2d6+1 would be better?

 

This is clearly an instance where Champions-centric thought changed a rule. Which is a problem that the system has always had.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

On the other hand' date=' the old randomness was actually pretty realistic.[/quote']

No it wasn't. Non-penetrating damage for bullets and the like is neither particularly random nor particularly effective. It's only penetrating damage that is random.

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This is clearly an instance where Champions-centric thought changed a rule. Which is a problem that the system has always had.

 

Except at 28 STUN per shot instead of 37 is going to make Killing Attacks a lot more useless in a supers game too. The effectiveness of 14 BODY Killing hasn't changed, it'll still do BODY or not depending on the target's rPD (or rED).

 

The 1/2d6 Multiple is broken on EVERY level.