6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

They'll be changing Damage Shield - oh cool!

 

Considering what happened to it in 5th, that actually causes me some concern.

 

 

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

It is an issue for Champions too, but the Superhero Genre wasn't known for Heroic Killing attacks till quite recently. So most Supers games can get by with Normal attacks as they tend to be the most common attacks in that genre.

 

In most normals games (outside of a Martial Arts kind of game) are based around Killing Attacks and this nerf Profoundly change those games.

 

Tasha

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

So, explain to me what real thing you are talking about in game terms. I'm not sure I follow, and I don't want to contradict you without understanding your reasoning.

 

I think you're talking about attacks that don't do Body but do massive Stun? Is that right?

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Steve actually made all the changes because he hates the Hero System and hopes they do bad enough this season that he can sell them to another city for a tidy profit.

 

OK, all right, that made me laugh.

 

Dangit. "You must spread Rep yadda yadda."

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

Well, there's no way to change it now so I'll just have to keep tinkering with my house rules until I work out the kinks. That's not 6th editions "fault" since I have to do the same thing even if I stick to 5th. I was hoping for something I'd like more than the proposed fix; it didn't work out that way. Stuff happens. I'm glad so many people are pleased with it.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree, I think normal games will notice a significant change from most of these rules listed so far, while Superheroic will experience a much less significant impact. I know a lot of people are convinced that everyone is packing body armor or buying combat luck, but there aren't many guys in the Old West or WW2 games like that. A lot of genre possibilities simply don't have armor by default and the automatic protection from stun will change the flavor of these games significantly, if the GM uses that rule change.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree' date=' I think normal games will notice a significant change from most of these rules listed so far, while Superheroic will experience a much less significant impact. I know a lot of people are convinced that everyone is packing body armor or buying combat luck...[/quote']

 

or running super powered settings where the genre assumption is that practically no one dies or gets seriously hurt by allegedly lethal weapons.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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?

 

At 1/2d6, you have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting the max Stun Multiple. On a 2d6 KA, you have a 1 in 108 chance of rolling 36 STUN (that's twice the odds of rolling three 6's on 3d6). On a 6d6 Normal Attack, that's 1 in 46656.

 

At 1/2d6+1, you have a 2 in 3 chance of doing the max, or more, STUN with a Killing Attack than you could possibly manage with the same DC Normal Attack.

 

If, as I suspect, the point is to make Killing Attacks less attractive than Normal Attacks for doing STUN damage, tagging it at 1/2d6 does it. You want them to average less STUN. All increasing the multiple does is increase the average, therefore weighting Killing Attacks toward more STUN, and make them more attractive for doing STUN than Normal Attacks.

 

Now, you could do something like:

 

STUN Multiple = (2d6/2)-1

STUN Multiple = (3d6/3)-1

STUN Multiple = (2d6/4)

 

etc.

 

but you're adding arithmetic in game that you really don't need to.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Jinkies!

 

Rut-roh, Raggy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' there's no way to change it now so I'll just have to keep tinkering with my house rules until I work out the kinks. That's not 6th editions "fault" since I have to do the same thing even if I stick to 5th. I was hoping for something I'd like more than the proposed fix; it didn't work out that way. Stuff happens. I'm glad so many people are pleased with it.[/quote']

 

I'm not pleased; I wanted my house rules used, or to see Killing be made into an advantage on regular attacks. That said, I'm OK with it.

 

By the way, there's a rumor going around that buying 6thEd is a legal contract that allows Steve to come to your house and steal all your dice. I thought people should know.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Chris you are using the far end of the spectrum which somebody on these board might see once in their life time

why not go with the average which is what we see more often

 

which would look like this

5e & 6e 12dc normal average 12 body 42 stun

 

5e killing 14 body x2.5 for 35 stun(or if you prefer 28 or 42 stun)

 

6e killing 14 body x2 for 28 stun

 

with defenses at 2x DC for stun come out to 24 def (if the resistant def was x1 of DC it would work some what)

 

so lets go with a hero and a villain both have 15 body ,20 con, 24 def,10 rec, 12 r/def and 45 stun

 

vs the 12dc normal attacks

our villain takes 0 body and 18 stun(only need to roll 3 above average to daze this villian he should last about 3 hits if he does not get a recovery

 

our hero vs a 12dc killing attack(4d6 ka)

our hero takes 2 body and 4 stun (there is no chance for dazing unless both the body and the stun multiplier roll high)

it will take 12 hits with no recoveries to KO this character and 15 to kill

if the character is say speed 6 it will take 2 turns to kill and he will still be awake for it

 

making it 4 times harder to KO our villain

the big thing is after 3 hits(6 body) the hero is hurt but still able to fight

while the villain is now out cold

 

now lets go with the 1d3 stun multiplier but only resistant def counts for def vs stun

our hero takes 2 body(as before)and 16 stun

our hero will last about 3 hits before being Ko'ed

now we have a fairly close match up

before the hero stand tall and defeat the villain with really no fear of getting killed

 

now with there being some stun that comes into play,the hero now might want to think about not going toe to toe with the villain as if he misses once the villain might KO him and now he is at the mercy of the villain

 

there needs to some fear from the killing attack and while it does less stun on average it is in the ball park of the majors instead of being in the pee wee league

 

 

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.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm not pleased; I wanted my house rules used, or to see Killing be made into an advantage on regular attacks. That said, I'm OK with it.

 

By the way, there's a rumor going around that buying 6thEd is a legal contract that allows Steve to come to your house and steal all your dice. I thought people should know.

 

Well, Steve is a lawyer by training. Those shrinkwrap agreements can be tricky.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

It has nothing to do with people being grown-up or not, though your penchant for oblique personal attacks is noted. It has to do with a desire to have a reasonable trade off. If one attack is going to do on average more Body damage, it only seems reasonable to me that it should on average do less Stun damage.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

So' date=' explain to me what real thing you are talking about in game terms.[/quote']

If you're wearing a bulletproof vest and get hit by a bullet that fails to penetrate, you're going to get bruising and pain, but it's going to be nowhere near as random as the effects of a bullet that penetrates.

 

There was a quite long discussion of the statistics of killing attacks on the 6e boards, and it was quite clear that KAs were superior to NAs against most targets. 1d3 might be unduly weak (though I don't really think so), but 1d6-1 was way too strong.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

You are making the assumption that the hit-location chart has been changed. Steve made no mention that it has been, so I don't see any reason to think that it has.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If one attack is going to do on average more Body damage, it only seems reasonable to me that it should on average do less Stun damage.

 

Wait. What? Huh?

 

You're going to have to explain that one, 'cause I just don't see it.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Wait. What? Huh?

 

You're going to have to explain that one, 'cause I just don't see it.

 

I think he's talking more from a balance point of view -- you're trading off STUN for BODY when you compare it to an equivalent Normal attack.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Chris you are using the far end of the spectrum which somebody on these board might see once in their life time

why not go with the average which is what we see more often

 

I'm sorry, what?

 

Far end of the spectrum....

 

For any given DC, for Killing Attacks under 5er and prior you have a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the maximum. 1 in 3 of hitting a 4 or 5. 1 in 3 chance of doing more STUN than a Normal Attack of the same BODY can possibly do. Edit: 50/50 of doing the max, or more, STUN than a Normal Attack of the same BODY.

 

Cha-ching.

 

The whole point of Normal Attacks, explicitly stated in 3rd edition at least, is to average more STUN and less BODY than Killing Attacks. I still don't see how giving Killing Attacks a 1/3 chance to do more STUN achieves that.

 

Steve has also stated that Normal Defenses protect against the STUN of Killing Attacks, whether or not you have any Resistant Defenses. Not that that matters much for our comparisons.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It is an issue for Champions too, but the Superhero Genre wasn't known for Heroic Killing attacks till quite recently. So most Supers games can get by with Normal attacks as they tend to be the most common attacks in that genre.

 

In most normals games (outside of a Martial Arts kind of game) are based around Killing Attacks and this nerf Profoundly change those games.

 

Tasha

 

Not an issue for me in supers as it reduces the bulletproof problem. A mechanic where more stun was done if actual body was taken might have been the answer if insufficient stun was the problem. Just an idea. maybe a house rule to help.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Wait. What? Huh?

 

You're going to have to explain that one, 'cause I just don't see it.

 

Sure. You have two attack types. At the same number of Damage Classes, one of them averages more Body damage dealt per attack than the other. It would then make sense to me that for things to be in balance that the other type of attack should average more Stun damage dealt per attack.

 

If they average the same amount of Stun and one averages more Body, then one of those attacks is objectively more effective than the other. Which means that they aren't balanced.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Here:

 

Greater Average Stun; Lower Average Body - Normal Attack.

Lower Average Stun; Greater Average Body - Killing Attack.

 

Damage Class for Damage Class this holds true. At lower ranges it narrows, at higher ranges it expands.

 

Volatility:

Normal Attacks have a greater Spread in the lower margin aspect (Body)

Killing Attacks have a greater Spread in the lower margin aspect (Stun)

 

Take 9 Damage Classes:

Normal Attack: Body Range 0-18 (Averge: 9) Stun Range 10-54 (Average: 31.5)

Killing Attack: Body Range 3-18 (Average: 10.5) Stun Range 3-54 (Average: 21)

 

Our maximums are the same across the board (this gives us some predictability, without modifiers you have a standard absolute maximum to work with); But each type of attack now provides a wider range in the aspect that gives the lower Average.

 

The two attacks are now essentially designed to do two different things: High in one, Low in the other.

 

Good. Bad. Not Sayin' Either Way. I've No Opinion Here.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If you're wearing a bulletproof vest and get hit by a bullet that fails to penetrate, you're going to get bruising and pain, but it's going to be nowhere near as random as the effects of a bullet that penetrates.

 

This is true enough.

 

There was a quite long discussion of the statistics of killing attacks on the 6e boards, and it was quite clear that KAs were superior to NAs against most targets. 1d3 might be unduly weak (though I don't really think so), but 1d6-1 was way too strong.

 

Yeah, that discussion is an old favorite around these parts.

 

Now, I'm not saying I'm opposed to the new rule. I'm actually really neutral to it. I was just looking at things from the POV of folks who don't like the change. I think there's a possibility of it having an impact on lower power level heroic games.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I had another thought about if unified power can be used to recouple. if you didn't like the precise combination of figurereds now you can adjust that for your campaign

 

Say maybe you want STR to have more effect on stun and BODY less , or 1 SPD for every 5 points of DEX, you could do. Of course I don't even know yet how the mechanic works so this might be a pipe dream.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't understand this thing about using Unified Power to recouple stats. How would that look on paper? Do we know what the UP mechanic actually is yet?

[Hierax]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Killing Attacks and Normal Attacks cost the same per DC, if Killing attacks do more BODY and Normal attacks more STUN that seems balanced.

 

If Killing Attacks did the same STUN as Normal Attacks they should cost more.

 

2 different tools for 2 different jobs.

 

I used Standard Effect to get around STUN Lotto problem, with 1/2d6 allowing rolling again isn't a problem anymore.

 

I think it's a brilliantly elegant fix for a long-standing problem.