6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I suppose they don't have to. Heck, if you aren't interested in balance, you could charge one player 3 points per DC for their Energy Blast while charging everyone else 5 points per DC. And one guy you really don't like might have to pay 7 points per DC.

 

Personally I prefer balance. Obviously YMMV.

 

I apologize. I didn't make my point clear.

 

My impression has always been that what separates Killing vs. Normal damage is that one requires Resistant Defense to counter it and the other doesn't. Period. Using a different dice mechanic to determine damage is acceptable, but there's a point where one needs to stop and accept that things are not going to match up nice and pretty and still be playable.

 

I'm not saying that costs be arbitrary from player to player. But taking the road that every Characteristic, every Skill, Talent, Power/what-have-you has to balance on some cosmic worksheet is taking the game into an extreme that creates such constructs as 5E Regeneration and "Instant Change", which frankly are unnecessarily complicated messes.

 

I recall once arguing with a player who insisted that Fencing MA maneuvers should be cheaper to buy than other Martial Arts because they required a Focus.

 

It is this trend of Game Balance as God that I've been seeing growing in the system. I concede that there is a respectable section of the Hero Games fanbase who prefer and welcome such a trend.

 

I'm not one of them. And I'm sad to see the game I've played and enjoyed since its inception way back in '81 head in a direction I have no wish to follow.

 

That's my mileage...

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It won't be because Talents are built with powers and Skills. So there will be a built in mechanic in the talent that wasn't in the Stat.

 

All right I have to be a hypocrite here.

 

Okay, why isn't the use of the complimentary skill roll a mechanic tied to the stat? Serious question.

 

Edit: and I certainly hope its not just "when target is sexually attracted" because Com wasn't just about sex appeal. that would be a big Fail for me. Appearance effect reactions in more ways than sexual. A very cute child can be very persuasive due to their looks but I pray it doesn't have anything to do with the target wanting ot have sex with them, for example.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

Strking Appearance, as it has been presented, is nothing I haven't already done to supplement COM. That means that, in my experience, it is not a replacement for COM.

 

Ok, so you've already added to the game to accommodate your playstyle. According to this, you use COM, and something like what you think Striking Appearance will be. So, you have half of your solution now. In 6th, you'll just have the other half.

 

It sounds like you need to houserule something to fit your playstyle either way you slice it.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I apologize. I didn't make my point clear.

 

My impression has always been that what separates Killing vs. Normal damage is that one requires Resistant Defense to counter it and the other doesn't. Period. Using a different dice mechanic to determine damage is acceptable, but there's a point where one needs to stop and accept that things are not going to match up nice and pretty and still be playable.

 

Which seemed to be a big part in why Steve chose the 1/2d6 STUN multiple. It was nice and simple and largely solved the STUN Lotto issue that a lot of people had. I never really saw it as an issue but whatever.

 

[qouote]I'm not saying that costs be arbitrary from player to player. But taking the road that every Characteristic, every Skill, Talent, Power/what-have-you has to balance on some cosmic worksheet is taking the game into an extreme that creates such constructs as 5E Regeneration and "Instant Change", which frankly are unnecessarily complicated messes.

 

Interesting I never saw them as a result of any kind of balance but rather a desire to have a smaller power list. I think they could have been done better, but I don't think balance was the goal.

 

I recall once arguing with a player who insisted that Fencing MA maneuvers should be cheaper to buy than other Martial Arts because they required a Focus.

 

Been there.

 

It is this trend of Game Balance as God that I've been seeing growing in the system. I concede that there is a respectable section of the Hero Games fanbase who prefer and welcome such a trend.

 

I'm not one of them. And I'm sad to see the game I've played and enjoyed since its inception way back in '81 head in a direction I have no wish to follow.

 

That's my mileage...

 

I think it's more a trend among people on the boards than it is a trend in Steve's designs but until we see the full 6e, I'm not sure we can really judge.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

All right I have to be a hypocrite here.

 

Okay, why isn't the use of the complimentary skill roll a mechanic tied to the stat? Serious question.

 

Edit: and I certainly hope its not just "when target is sexually attracted" because Com wasn't just about sex appeal. that would be a big Fail for me. Appearance effect reactions in more ways than sexual. A very cute child can be very persuasive due to their looks but I pray it doesn't have anything to do with the target wanting ot have sex with them, for example.

 

I don't think it does any good to get too wound up about any poster's speculation about something might be designed. The actual release is only 9 weeks from today.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't think it does any good to get too wound up about any poster's speculation about something might be designed. The actual release is only 9 weeks from today.

 

I'm not getting "wound up" about it. I hope the Talent is not that crude a tool. That would be a shame to those that chose to use it.

 

I was interested in why Tasha felt Comeliness had no mechanic that effected interaction skills or perhaps why she (I assume) felt it was too complicated to handle. Though the Com wars I heard the first meme pursued aggressively by those that didn't like Comeliness. I started to interpret it as "I don't think Comeliness has enough function to warrant being a characteristic" but I'm curious if that's the case.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I actually meant it as "why should I live in the past?" but you're right even that could be taken as an insult.

 

So, I apologize -- I didn't mean to insult you.

 

I should have said: "It's just a game. The rules have changed. I'll use the new rules".

 

 

's okay. The whole thing seems to have me a bit overwrought so I took it wrong. Not your fault.

 

And on that note, I think I'm done with this thread. I'll keep checking the OP to see what new changes are released, but this rehash of the 6E threads is a bit too exhausting to keep up with.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Ok, so you've already added to the game to accommodate your playstyle. According to this, you use COM, and something like what you think Striking Appearance will be. So, you have half of your solution now. In 6th, you'll just have the other half.

 

It sounds like you need to houserule something to fit your playstyle either way you slice it.

 

Limited skill levels is a houserule?

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't think it does any good to get too wound up about any poster's speculation about something might be designed. The actual release is only 9 weeks from today.

 

Also I know that that isn't worded correctly and doesn't take into account aesthetics, cuteness or other things that could be percieved as appealing. Of course the Talent is named Striking Appearance so it seems like you could do a lot of things with it. From Uglyness, to aesthetic appealing, to Cuteness to out and out sex appeal. Sounds like there is a lot of room for customization.

 

But I am a lowly poster just trying to imagine what Steve will come up with. The actually book may and probably will vary.

 

Tasha

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It won't be because Talents are built with powers and Skills. So there will be a built in mechanic in the talent that wasn't in the Stat. As I said earlier I imagine that it will be purchased as +1 with all Pre Skills (5) (+1 limit) only vs targets that that are attracted sexually to the PC which should come out to 3 pts or 5pts for +2 to the Roll.

Most people don't look at the "build" for Talents at all; they simply buy the Talent - especially if they use Hero Designer which doesn't show the build.

 

I've never liked the fact Talents are "built" with Powers and/or Skills anyway; I've always felt they should be entirely self-contained as unique abilities in their own right. I'd hoped that would be one of the changes in 6E although we don't know if that's the case or not yet.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Limited skill levels is a houserule?

 

Ok, I didn't catch that in your post.

 

Still, wouldn't it be pretty easy to just slip the COM stat back in there?

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Most people don't look at the "build" for Talents at all; they simply buy the Talent - especially if they use Hero Designer which doesn't show the build.

 

I've never liked the fact Talents are "built" with Powers and/or Skills anyway; I've always felt they should be entirely self-contained as unique abilities in their own right. I'd hoped that would be one of the changes in 6E although we don't know if that's the case or not yet.

 

The upside to using Powers for Talents is now we have a non-arbitrary model to utilize when we decide we want some new Talents for our game.

 

And sometimes we call those Talents 'Superskills' or 'Heroic Skills' or 'Cinematic Abilities' or 'Talents' or 'Feats'

 

It's a useful guideline I think. Especially to new players who don't have an intrinsic understanding of balancing the System that comes from a decade or more of use.

 

So there's that angle to consider.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Ok, I didn't catch that in your post.

 

Still, wouldn't it be pretty easy to just slip the COM stat back in there?

 

back dooring figured characteristic

 

getting straight poop on Unified Power

 

Slipping into Com

 

Man, these mechanics threads get so blue! Grow up people.

[casualplayer]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This thread grows faster than I can read. Keee-ripes!

 

If I read the latest posts correctly, SexEd comes with Striking raisins. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Two scoops of raisins are the reason SexEd HERO System's so pleasing!

 

I will be able to do everything I could in earlier editions and some things will be more refined, more distinct, better facilitated. Anything that seems to be missing from earlier editions will very quickly spawn threads of 70 ways to emulate that thing using SexEd, so no worries.

 

It's a chunk of change but I've already figured out what my children are going to have to do without so I can afford a copy. If I can do it, so can you.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You'll all feel quite silly when Striking Appearance is Pre with Does Knockback.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The upside to using Powers for Talents is now we have a non-arbitrary model to utilize when we decide we want some new Talents for our game.

 

And sometimes we call those Talents 'Superskills' or 'Heroic Skills' or 'Cinematic Abilities' or 'Talents' or 'Feats'

 

It's a useful guideline I think. Especially to new players who don't have an intrinsic understanding of balancing the System that comes from a decade or more of use.

 

So there's that angle to consider.

Good point, although I suppose I could be stubborn and declare that those builds should be for illustrative purposes only to calculate pricing. Seems to me Talents get used fairly often as "superpowers" in games or genres that don't allow Powers.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You'll all feel quite silly when Striking Appearance is Pre with Does Knockback.

Va-va-va-Voom! :bounce:

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Good point' date=' although I suppose I could be stubborn and declare that those builds should be for illustrative purposes only to calculate pricing. Seems to me Talents get used fairly often as "superpowers" in games or genres that don't allow Powers.[/quote']

 

To be honest, I think the builds are really just to calculate pricing. After all, if you add Advantages or Limitations to a Talent, you the Talent's cost as the base for calculating the cost. You don't go back to first principles and add those Advantages and Limitations into the original build.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The upside to using Powers for Talents is now we have a non-arbitrary model to utilize when we decide we want some new Talents for our game.

 

And sometimes we call those Talents 'Superskills' or 'Heroic Skills' or 'Cinematic Abilities' or 'Talents' or 'Feats'

 

It's a useful guideline I think. Especially to new players who don't have an intrinsic understanding of balancing the System that comes from a decade or more of use.

 

So there's that angle to consider.

 

This is the sort of thing I was referring to, this concern for "balance."

 

If I need to represent an ability in my game that can be covered conceptually by a Talent, why should I go through the trouble of trying to build some power or skill construct to define it?

 

Just say it does what you've conceived it does. Come up with a cost that seems reasonable based on factors like its usefulness in the game and frequency of use. Then go.

 

This is not a personal attack so please don't take it as such. It's just that I've reached a point where this level of point-crunching seems excessive to me.

 

And I see it in the rules as much as in the boards. I point once again to the much-maligned Regeneration construct in 5E. It's the textbook example of unnecessary complication.

 

I don't even know why I'm going on with this. It's a done deal. Never mind, I'm going to bed...

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This is the sort of thing I was referring to, this concern for "balance."

 

If I need to represent an ability in my game that can be covered conceptually by a Talent, why should I go through the trouble of trying to build some power or skill construct to define it?

 

Just say it does what you've conceived it does. Come up with a cost that seems reasonable based on factors like its usefulness in the game and frequency of use. Then go.

 

This is not a personal attack so please don't take it as such. It's just that I've reached a point where this level of point-crunching seems excessive to me.

 

And I see it in the rules as much as in the boards. I point once again to the much-maligned Regeneration construct in 5E. It's the textbook example of unnecessary complication.

 

I don't even know why I'm going on with this. It's a done deal. Never mind, I'm going to bed...

 

No personal attack taken - And I agree, for the most part the "number crunching for balance" is a complete pain in the butt. And utterly useless in many applications.

 

It has become over utilized.

 

However - here's the Caveat associated with Talents: As Rod pointed out: if we decide to Advantage or Limit Talents we do not go back and alter the original build - we simply take the Talent Cost as the Base Points and go from there.

 

That tells me that

1) We have taken Talents at their Cost Value without further need to analyze

2) We have provided the Build so those who are completely new to the system have an idea of what to look for

3) Have attempted to find balance between "Pay for what you get" - "Point totals balance out to utility" - "finding and using a reasonable cost"

 

 

You and I can look at something and most likely go "Oh, well, yeah 3 points for that. You'll get some use, but it won't be too earth shattering, won't break my game, and if you're really clever might be pure awesome"

 

Someone who has never worked with Hero before will look at Perfect Pitch and go "Why is that 3 points versus Eidetic Memories 5 points?"

Providing a build that says "Here's how we wrote it on the napkin when we kicked the idea around drinks one night" is a helpful tool.

 

Let me ask you this:

When you write down Bump Of Direction on the Talent list on your sheet do you write out the power or just write Bump Of Direction? You just write "Bump Of Direction" - there's no actual need to have the build. But it's just in the book as a tool to use. It hasn't changed how you use it. It hasn't changed what it does. But it has provided a road map for someone who isn't familiar with the system.

 

All in all, I don't see this as a "we must stat out everything" direction.

 

It also, and this is my opinion, illustrates that "Powers" are not the domain of Superheroic Gaming.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

So a 60 AP killing atack would average 21 BOD and 42 STUN. The same STUN as a normal attack, and a 75% increase to BOD. Plus, the BOD is reduced only by resistant defenses.

 

It averages 10.5" Knockback vs 5" for the Normnal Attack.

 

So my character has a choice of being a killer or being comparatively ineffectual. And forget using Entangle or Force Wall - they can't stand up to a KA.

 

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

 

I think the best swing back for KA's is a more rigorous enforcement of rDEF levels. If you want KA's to be ineffectual, let people have over the high end DC level in rDEF. Want it to be effective? Limit rDEF to about 2/3 the DC level so KA's will typically do BOD. Killing attacks become the attack of choice for lethality. In games where lethality is not appropriate or not desired, use normal attacks.

 

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']

 

EXACTLY!

 

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.

 

How come the Normals have Plate Mail, but not weaponry that can beat 6 DC's after levels, STR adds, etc?

 

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, 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.[/quote']

 

Shouldn't gunshots in Old West and WW II games be lethal? Maybe characters actually have to consider they are serously wounded and break off combat rather than fight until they or their opponent drops.

 

And they need to be balanced... why?

 

I'd like to see a system where character effectiveness doesn't vary markedly with character concept. If the KA is overpowered, characters with KA's are overpowered.

 

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

 

Say, has anyone asked, or Steve commented on, whether Regen will change in 6e? All I've seen on the boards is the comment that Healing is changing, but he doesn't want to explain how yet.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There are also times when pricing Talents by Powers doesn't produce play accurate effects even if the math works out. I think Ambidexterity is a good example. Nine points works out from the base effect (penalty skill levels) but IME the Talent rarely works out to be as important as the other things that 9 points could have been invested in.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It also' date=' and this is my opinion, illustrates that "Powers" are not the domain of Superheroic Gaming.[/quote']

 

There's also the cynical point of view that says if you can just eyeball a point value for a Talent, then why can't you just eyeball a value for a Power? And if you can do that, what do we need these build rules for?

[James Gillen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' first of all there will not be a Sidekick for 6e. There will be a Hero System 6th Edition Basic Rulebook which is the 6e equivalent. It's always been described as equivalent to Sidekick so I assume it will be complete. They have announced Champions Online: The Role-Playing Game as being built around the Basic Rulebook in the same way that PS238 and Lucha Libre Hero are built around Sidekick -- so once again I would suspect it will have combat rules.[/quote']

 

Shouldn't it be called "Champions Not Online?"

 

JG

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There are also times when pricing Talents by Powers doesn't produce play accurate effects even if the math works out. I think Ambidexterity is a good example. Nine points works out from the base effect (penalty skill levels) but IME the Talent rarely works out to be as important as the other things that 9 points could have been invested in.

 

This is an extremely valid point.

 

It would help that if sometimes a note were tagged on "This is how we wrote it on the napkin, which makes it the 'point legal build' - but really, it's only worth This Much."

 

And then repriced to match common utility.

 

System isn't perfect. But I like the transparency 5E provided. At least that way we know why something came out of X Points, even if it turns out to only be worth Y Points when the rubber meets the road.