6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

in both cases each of these powers needed a special hand wave to make them fit

in Regen it was time and going off in post 12 something no other power can do other than recovery

Instant Change used a special only for it takes no time and you can still attack

Transform is an attack power but in this case it gets a special hand wave

and this new form only really works if your costume has only l12 a body

so having your armor that has body cannot be teleported or meld with you from the extra dimensional closet you store it in

 

to get rid of 2 powers that worked fine as is ,for 2 clunky we need special rules only for them so they can work in my eyes is vanity

 

this is not to say that you could not use them to build say a different healing effect(healing with the regen lims and advantages that also does a slow healing to any drains,flashes,etc)

 

as we all have said there is no one right way to build a power

but to get rid what worked just fine

to show off IMHO is vain

Because he felt they were minor powers that were better done as builds of other powers? That's vain?

 

When you're adding a Power like Healing and there's a Power for Regeneration, doesn't it make sense to combine them? Did he do a good job of it? No. Did he do it out of vanity? I don't think so.

 

And as for Instant Change, did we really need a separate power that lets you change clothes? Maybe when it was just a superhero game, but that isn't the Hero System anymore. Again, was it good build? Maybe not. But I still don't see it as vanity.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It should be a POWER, not a Talent.

 

A "Talent", for the most part, should be able to be trained for.

 

It should be a power.

 

You can learn to speed read. You can learn to feign death.

 

A Boob Job is not considered "Training."

 

Can you learn Danger Sense? Can you learn Eidetic Memory? Can you learn Ambidexterity? Steve doesn't think so and discusses it on the first page of the Talents section (5er page 86).

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Posting as someone who has only ever known 5e®, I do not mind the Instant Change and Regeneration builds.

 

OTOH, Healing always seemed nerfed to me and I wouldn't mind seeing Instant Change as a Talent, so take that for what it's worth.

[jtelson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

I seem to remember something like this with the 5th Edition (rather than revised) version of Eidetic Memory; They used Retrocognition and essentially handwaved the cost down.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

Ok that was a bit uncalled for. I have never said that you were stupid or incompetent. Thanks for assuming that I am too stupid to play with the big boys.

 

Com had really no mechanic behind it in Champions 2nd edition. The first time I saw any inkling of a mechanic behind COM was the vague passage for the seduction skill in 1st Edition Justice Inc of "A Comeliness Roll may be considered complementary to this skill". This has been the only real use for the stat till 5th edition which mentions that it may be used in certain circumstances with Presence based skills. In 5th Ed Rev, it says "COM rolls are sometimes used as complementary Rolls to some Interaction Skills in situations where a character's appearance (good or bad) might influence what happens. Still kind of vague, but worded better.

 

I really don't care if COM is removed or not. I am totally ambivalent to what happens to it. I have been using my brain to imagine how this new talent would work and how it might be structured. Also I have been imagine how such a mechanic could work to make for a better system than what was there.

 

I guess I see the removal of COM as a VERY minor thing compared to some of the major changes that the OP listed.

 

Tasha

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Here's a suggestion for how I think an 'appearance' perk or ability should work:

 

'Appearance': -1/4 limitation on presence. This ability only functions if the subject can clearly perceive your appearance; thus, it does not function if you are invisible, unseen, disguised, etc. Frequently, additional limitations are taken, such as 'friendly only' (-1/2), 'hostile only' (-1/2), only vs creatures that respond to human norms of beauty (generally -1/4), only vs creatures that respond to (some other) norms of beauty (usually -1 or more), only vs opposite gender (-1/2)....

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Com had really no mechanic behind it in Champions 2nd edition. The first time I saw any inkling of a mechanic behind COM was the vague passage for the seduction skill in 1st Edition Justice Inc of "A Comeliness Roll may be considered complementary to this skill". This has been the only real use for the stat till 5th edition which mentions that it may be used in certain circumstances with Presence based skills. In 5th Ed Rev' date=' it says "COM rolls are sometimes used as complementary Rolls to some Interaction Skills in situations where a character's appearance (good or bad) might influence what happens. Still kind of vague, but worded better.[/quote']

 

Actually, Tasha, I remember an additional mechanical use for COM that was presented in the original (pre-Fourth Edition) Golden Age of Champions, in which a character was allowed to add half his COM score to his PRE when making Presence Attacks that weren't based on fear, e.g. to inspire or persuade. Like several other distinctive rules elements from GAC, that one wasn't carried forward to later editions of HERO.

 

That approach inspired my own use of COM in my games.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Huh. I never saw anyone post that no one uses COM. I saw people post that there is almost no in the rules uses for COM' date=' but that is an entirely different matter.[/quote']

 

I've seen two things posted constantly about the characteristic each time it's discussed. I've been directly challenged when I've said I use Com on more than one occasion by those that have said "no one uses it".

 

1. There are no rule/mechanics for it.

 

2. No one uses it. Not little use but no use (emphasis mine) and correlating statements like using a Talent will mean buying Com will actually have game impact as if Com didn't have a mechanical effect. In the case they may have meant will have a more frequent game impact but that's not what was said and I don't think that even follows but either case that's subjective opinion whereas saying Comeliness doesn't have a game impact is false one (unless the GM chooses not to use it, of course).

 

That it didn't have a mechanical use 2 editions ago doesn't seem to justify saying it has no use now as a reason why people shouldn't care if its dropped.Tasha brought up no mechanical use in this thread. James Gillen made a comment about the Talent actually have mechanical use vs buying Com up. There may be others.

 

 

 

I agree that saying there is not much use for Comeliness is a different thing from saying no use. and some proponents of putting it to the way side use the reasoning. But that it "does nothing" has been one of the major arguments for axing it as a characteristic from proponents of the idea since the start of the Com wars.

 

As I said earlier I began trying to read the "no impact/mechanics" as a very clumsy way of saying it does too little to be a Characteristic but really being generous interpreting what they have literally said.

 

Edit: As

 

Here is Steve Long's comment on the Comeliness from the first page of the characteristic thread

 

Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

 

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ).

 

Emphasis mine. That's how pervasive the "Com has no mechanics" meme is,

 

Now I don't want to go mining around in those huge threads looking for specific incidences particularly because it is no longer possible to quote directly from it.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Ok that was a bit uncalled for. I have never said that you were stupid or incompetent. Thanks for assuming that I am too stupid to play with the big boys.

 

 

Where did I say you were "too stupid to play with big boys". I wanted to know how you came to position you have, no more, no less. The statement that come has no function is provably not true in the current editions of the game so the statement that it doesn't confuses me and you were simply the most recent person to voice it.

 

In your original post you mentioned that the Talent would likely be less work for a overtaxed GM which I gathered to mean you felt Comeliness was tiresome and added work, that's it. I don't think that its an unreasonable assumption that if someone says they thing the new way will much simpler than the previous method that they found the earlier way at least something of a chore. I has nothing to do with their intelligence or competence just their opinion of both methods. Who doesn't like things simpler? I've been griping about Instant Change and Regeneration because they were simpler than the current methods. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or can't play with the big boys. It means I don't like doing extra work when I don't have too.

 

I was simply wondering why you had found Com complicated enough that a simpler method would be an ease.

 

Com had really no mechanic behind it in Champions 2nd edition. The first time I saw any inkling of a mechanic behind COM was the vague passage for the seduction skill in 1st Edition Justice Inc of "A Comeliness Roll may be considered complementary to this skill". This has been the only real use for the stat till 5th edition which mentions that it may be used in certain circumstances with Presence based skills. In 5th Ed Rev, it says "COM rolls are sometimes used as complementary Rolls to some Interaction Skills in situations where a character's appearance (good or bad) might influence what happens. Still kind of vague, but worded better.

 

Okay but a vague use is different from no use which is what you (and may others) have said in the past. That it didn't have a mechanical use 2 editions ago doesn't seem to justify saying it has no use now as a reason why people shouldn't care if its dropped. And as I've said before all the characteristic rolls are vague. They need to be fleshed out more not canned, IMO. I don't think that's being overly or unreasonably pedantic. The Talent is going to have the same limitation on it (in cases where the character's appearance matters) after all. I can understand feeling that is too narrow a scope for a characteristic even if I don't agree.

 

I really don't care if COM is removed or not. I am totally ambivalent to what happens to it. I have been using my brain to imagine how this new talent would work and how it might be structured. Also I have been imagine how such a mechanic could work to make for a better system than what was there.

 

I never contested your right to feel that way. Your opinion is your opinion and you are welcome do it just like everyone else. I was wondering what line of thought lead you to make some statements that appeared to be mistaken in one case and making a major assumption the play style of others. You're not the only person on the "anti" (or more "meh" in this case I gather) side to make them. Just the most recent.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually' date=' Tasha, I remember an additional mechanical use for COM that was presented in the original (pre-Fourth Edition) [i']Golden Age of Champions[/i], in which a character was allowed to add half his COM score to his PRE when making Presence Attacks that weren't based on fear, e.g. to inspire or persuade. Like several other distinctive rules elements from GAC, that one wasn't carried forward to later editions of HERO.

 

That approach inspired my own use of COM in my games.

 

That's an interesting rule and seems to make sense from a sfx stand point and from a cost basis at least superficially.(Com is half the cost of Pre) and works with similarly to one method of writing up a horrific appearance (Pre: Only to Frighten/intimidate) I might have to use that. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Actually' date=' Tasha, I remember an additional mechanical use for COM that was presented in the original (pre-Fourth Edition) [i']Golden Age of Champions[/i], in which a character was allowed to add half his COM score to his PRE when making Presence Attacks that weren't based on fear, e.g. to inspire or persuade. Like several other distinctive rules elements from GAC, that one wasn't carried forward to later editions of HERO.

 

That approach inspired my own use of COM in my games.

 

Ah! This is perfect. I was in favor of keeping COM, defining it differently, and raising the point cost to a full point, along with giving it some function outside the Complementary Skill Rolls, to merit the cost increase.

 

First, negative COM would have to go. COM would be redefined as the intensity of the character's appearance, not just beauty. You could chose three broad special effects (making the stat fit with the reasoning from effect philosophy) for your COM: Beauty, Ugliness, and Nondescriptness.

 

For complementary rolls, you could apply your COM roll as per your focus. (Nondescript characters would be better at Shadowing and other skills requiring one to be discrete or blend into a crowd.)

 

Likewise, you could use the GA Hero rule to add to different types of PRE attacks. (Again, obvious for pretty or ugly characters, for nondiscript, the PRE attack may go along the lines of appearing as an inconsequential or unthreatening target, with an exeptional result of being regarded as a simple bystander in the right circumstances.)

 

Of course, COM can also be used to adjucate modifiers for mental powers, like Mind Control. You can already do that (target more inclined to obey a "kiss me" command from an attractive target or to attack an uglier target, etc.) with COM, but the rules don't really suggest it anywhere that I can remember.

 

That gives COM (or a rename to Appearance/APP may be in order) a solid three areas of benefit, justifies getting rid of the stupid negative scores, and justifies a normal price cost, which adds granularity since people can now buy any value and not just even numbers.

 

That's the fix I'd want to see for COM in 6th. The Golden Age rule of adding to PRE attacks is the final piece of the puzzel that would make COM viable at a full 1 point cost. (It'd also help flesh out PRE attacks a bit more, I think.)

 

Not gonna happen, but I really like that GAC rule, so I just tossed it out there.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As a complementary skill roll to PRE the cost of COM is right: 5 points averages +1 as a bonus (that's +10 COM, so +2 on your COM roll but complimentary rolls only give +1 per 2 points you make it by). In fact 1/2 point is a tad high as COM is not always relevant.

 

I think a COM mechanic does have a place in HERO, and I've certainly used COM as a complementary roll and for other purposes (sometimes I will take COM rolls for the group to determine an NPCs initial attitude toward the group).

 

However, I don't think COM, as is, is a fine enough tool to do what I want it to, and is haunted by the question: how do different species appreciate COM. You can solve that too, but it would require more rules.

 

Again, I do not mind that COM is gone, but I expect to be able to do everything that it could do in 6e AND MORE. If it does not do more then why change it?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Not to belabor the COM debate on this thread (like it isn't too late already) , but since the old GAC rule I brought up is being discussed, I guess I should elaborate on how I refined it for my games.

 

I would allow points of COM above a score of 10 to add to a character's PRE score on a 1-to-1-point basis, for the purpose of non-fear-based Presence Attacks as I described above, and for Interaction Skill rolls, when I as GM judged COM should apply. However, buying down one's COM score below 10 would also subtract from PRE on the same 1-to-1 basis for those purposes. Not only did this give a wider mechanical benefit to COM, it also added a detrimental effect to choosing to reduce COM below starting levels. I considered these effects to be sufficient to justify the cost of COM in Character Points.

 

I shall now cease to contribute to the Never-Ending-COM-Saga.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As a complementary skill roll to PRE the cost of COM is right: 5 points averages +1 as a bonus (that's +10 COM' date=' so +2 on your COM roll but complimentary rolls only give +1 per 2 points you make it by). In fact 1/2 point is a tad high as COM is not always relevant.[/quote']

 

If the only thing you use it for is complimentary skills. That's why I specified adding more utility to it as a condition of raising its cost.

 

I think a COM mechanic does have a place in HERO, and I've certainly used COM as a complementary roll and for other purposes (sometimes I will take COM rolls for the group to determine an NPCs initial attitude toward the group).

 

That's an interesting idea. I wonder how that could be codified into a rule? As you note below, it may not always be relevant between species. Then again, GMs are there for a reason. Like, to decide when something is relevant.

 

However, I don't think COM, as is, is a fine enough tool to do what I want it to, and is haunted by the question: how do different species appreciate COM. You can solve that too, but it would require more rules.

 

You don't need a rule for cross-species use of COM. All of the applications of COM are conditional anyway. I'd consider it part of campaign design to define how one race views COM in relation to another. That's more a detail of setting than anything else.

 

Again, I do not mind that COM is gone, but I expect to be able to do everything that it could do in 6e AND MORE. If it does not do more then why change it?

 

I agree. I'm not strongly opposed to the change, but I'd like to see an expansion of COM, and hope that's the case with the new talent. If it's just a roll modifier, then that's a step back IMO. I can live with it, in that case, but would say it's less than ideal.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Not to belabor the COM debate on this thread (like it isn't too late already) , but since the old GAC rule I brought up is being discussed, I guess I should elaborate on how I refined it for my games.

 

I would allow points of COM above a score of 10 to add to a character's PRE score on a 1-to-1-point basis, for the purpose of non-fear-based Presence Attacks as I described above, and for Interaction Skill rolls, when I as GM judged COM should apply. However, buying down one's COM score below 10 would also subtract from PRE on the same 1-to-1 basis for those purposes. Not only did this give a wider mechanical benefit to COM, it also added a detrimental effect to choosing to reduce COM below starting levels. I considered these effects to be sufficient to justify the cost of COM in Character Points.

 

I shall now cease to contribute to the Never-Ending-COM-Saga.

 

I'm totally not debating COM. I don't care enough to debate an aspect of a game I probably will never get a chance to play anyway. =P

 

But thanks for the additional info! Might be useful for those who want to tweak the COM rules in their own games. =)

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I shall now cease to contribute to the Never-Ending-COM-Saga.

 

Well, the Great Linked Debate petered out....we need SOMETHING to fill our empty gray lives!

 

 

Join us, Laiden....JOIN US.... it only hurts if you fight it....

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Join us' date=' [b']Laiden[/b]....JOIN US.... it only hurts if you fight it....

 

You want to brainwash me, you'd better start by spelling my name right.

[Alibear]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I reckon I have my first house rule for SIX. Normal PD will not stop the stun of killing attacks in my game.

 

But I will be using half d6 stun damage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

to show off IMHO is vain

 

Getting tired of the insults. To everyone from everyone.

 

This one I can address however. And I'm calling you on it.

 

History Lesson:

When the fifth Edition manuscript was originally written it was written By Steve At Someone's Elses Request. The original text was written well before Darren, Jason, And Co. all got involved. It was written with someone else's instructions on it.

 

Steve had input, but he's stated that there were a lot of things he was prevented from doing, or asked to do, when it was written.

 

When DoJ came along Steve already had the manuscriot written and ready. A bit of editing later and Steve was able to get it up and running QUICKLY.

 

He has stated several times that now that 6E has come along he can go back and redo all the things he feels should be redone, and take a completel look at the system.

 

We have no way of telling what parts of the 5E text were Steve's ideas, or what were handed to him when it was originally written as "do it this way because it's our money" from those who hired him.

 

So it wasn't Vanity and I'd appreciate it you - YES YOU - would stop saying that. I don't care what your opinion on the constructs are, it's insulting.

 

There's enough heat in this thread without tossing around personal insults to ANYONE. By they a board poster or Steve himself.

 

(no I'm not a fan of Regeneration either. But I'm not going to insult Steve over it.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Not to belabor the COM debate on this thread (like it isn't too late already) , but since the old GAC rule I brought up is being discussed, I guess I should elaborate on how I refined it for my games.

 

I would allow points of COM above a score of 10 to add to a character's PRE score on a 1-to-1-point basis, for the purpose of non-fear-based Presence Attacks as I described above, and for Interaction Skill rolls, when I as GM judged COM should apply. However, buying down one's COM score below 10 would also subtract from PRE on the same 1-to-1 basis for those purposes. Not only did this give a wider mechanical benefit to COM, it also added a detrimental effect to choosing to reduce COM below starting levels. I considered these effects to be sufficient to justify the cost of COM in Character Points.

 

I shall now cease to contribute to the Never-Ending-COM-Saga.

 

This is a good idea. But it runs into a problem. If I have a COM of 6 I not only get points back but I can add it to my PRE score.

 

So I got points for increased effect. Something is definitely at odds here.

[Steve Long]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't normally post to threads of this sort, but I want to clarify something, just to make sure everyone's clear.

 

I've quoted below something ghost-angel posted above re: the history of the development of 5E. It's not incorrect, but I think my comments about this have been misconstrued or blown out of proportion.

 

It's absolutely true that when I wrote 5E I was working for someone else, and I had to do what they wanted. It's also true that some of what they had me do was not necessarily what I'd have done if I'd had the total freedom to write 5E entirely on my own.

 

But that's not to say that there were dozens and dozens of things, or entire rules substructures, that I violently disagreed with. There are certainly some improvements in 6E that I would've made twelve years ago if I'd been allowed to. But I think the primary source of the 6E improvements has been my, and your, experiences over the past seven years, which have involved more intensive examination and use of the HERO System than ever before. The more you're exposed to something, the more you learn, and the more deeply you think about it.

 

 

 

History Lesson:

When the fifth Edition manuscript was originally written it was written By Steve At Someone's Elses Request. The original text was written well before Darren, Jason, And Co. all got involved. It was written with someone else's instructions on it.

 

Steve had input, but he's stated that there were a lot of things he was prevented from doing, or asked to do, when it was written.

 

When DoJ came along Steve already had the manuscriot written and ready. A bit of editing later and Steve was able to get it up and running QUICKLY.

 

He has stated several times that now that 6E has come along he can go back and redo all the things he feels should be redone, and take a completel look at the system.

 

We have no way of telling what parts of the 5E text were Steve's ideas, or what were handed to him when it was originally written as "do it this way because it's our money" from those who hired him.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Mostly I wanted to point out that not all of 5E was your idea, and unless you explicitely say otherwise - I'm not going to assume any given piece of 5E was your idea specifically or someone elses idea specifically.

 

And to call you names over choices made is both innacurate and uncalled for.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well I, for one, am looking forward to 6e.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' he is from [i']Edmonton[/i].

 

Good point.

 

OK, True Confessions time. To my eternal shame and mortification, I am tainted. That's right, TAINTED. My birth certificate is issued by the Province of Ontario (Trenton , Hasting County). And I can count about 8 of my pre-adult years lived in That Province. I repent and plead forgiveness for this Sin of Temporary Residency.

 

I close my confession in the immortal words of the Arrogant Worms - Ontario Sucks, Ontario Sucks

 

Honestly, can't we all just get along and focus our ire on those who truly deserve it (who shall remain nameless, but who seem to believe they are the only people on the two continents whose name they have absconded with to self-reference)?

 

When you're adding a Power like Healing and there's a Power for Regeneration, doesn't it make sense to combine them? Did he do a good job of it? No. Did he do it out of vanity? I don't think so.

 

And as for Instant Change, did we really need a separate power that lets you change clothes? Maybe when it was just a superhero game, but that isn't the Hero System anymore. Again, was it good build? Maybe not. But I still don't see it as vanity.

 

Agreed. My guess is, had I written 5e or 6e, there would be a lot more complaints, and they would be a lot more valid, than those levied against Steve. On the plus side, I would likely only have had to put up with it once, since MYsystem would undoubtedly not sell nearly well enough to keep a company in business long enough to write a new edition...

 

I've seen Steve make pretty much that exact statement about COM. As a reason why he was planning on turning it into a Talent.

 

While I dislike the decision, I appreciate the reasoning. In many ways COM was the odd man out of characteristics.

 

Ah! This is perfect. I was in favor of keeping COM, defining it differently, and raising the point cost to a full point, along with giving it some function outside the Complementary Skill Rolls, to merit the cost increase.

 

First, negative COM would have to go. COM would be redefined as the intensity of the character's appearance, not just beauty. You could chose three broad special effects (making the stat fit with the reasoning from effect philosophy) for your COM: Beauty, Ugliness, and Nondescriptness.

 

For complementary rolls, you could apply your COM roll as per your focus. (Nondescript characters would be better at Shadowing and other skills requiring one to be discrete or blend into a crowd.)

 

Likewise, you could use the GA Hero rule to add to different types of PRE attacks. (Again, obvious for pretty or ugly characters, for nondiscript, the PRE attack may go along the lines of appearing as an inconsequential or unthreatening target, with an exeptional result of being regarded as a simple bystander in the right circumstances.)

 

Of course, COM can also be used to adjucate modifiers for mental powers, like Mind Control. You can already do that (target more inclined to obey a "kiss me" command from an attractive target or to attack an uglier target, etc.) with COM, but the rules don't really suggest it anywhere that I can remember.

 

That gives COM (or a rename to Appearance/APP may be in order) a solid three areas of benefit, justifies getting rid of the stupid negative scores, and justifies a normal price cost, which adds granularity since people can now buy any value and not just even numbers.

 

That's the fix I'd want to see for COM in 6th. The Golden Age rule of adding to PRE attacks is the final piece of the puzzel that would make COM viable at a full 1 point cost. (It'd also help flesh out PRE attacks a bit more, I think.)

 

Not gonna happen, but I really like that GAC rule, so I just tossed it out there.

 

I like the idea of renaming COM "APP", and requiring SFX. The lower COM is, the more nondescript you are. The higher it is, the more (you choose) impressive; scary; hideous; beautiful; cute & cuddly; etc. you look.

 

But, as I say this, I find it persuades me that the replacement of COM with a series of talents could serve equally well.

 

Given Steve has replied, and is following this thread (for which he deserves immense credit - I doubt I would or, if I did, would hold my tongue as he has) I hope he will consider some of these ideas as mechanics for the Talents with which COM will be replaced. Maybe my games will keep COM with the Talent becoming what one gets from high COM. Maybe it will use the Talent, and have COM as a characteristic equal to 10 + Points Spent on Talent x FACTOR. Maybe the talent will take over (but I like two column characteristics on my sheest, so I need a &$# EVEN NUMBER - Three columns would work, but 17 is &*%$ PRIME NUMBER).

 

I supported COM. I still feel bad about its departure. But it is time to accept it is gone and move on to make the talent the best Appearance Role Playing Tool it can possibly be. At the end of the day, making Appearance work functionally in the game is vastly more important than the nomenclature of the mechanic used.

 

And let's be realistic - no matter what decision Steve made about COM, there were going to be a lot of people who didn't like it. SOME decision had to be made, and Steve had to make it.

 

Now about this whole "Killing Attacks are nerfed" thing: I was under the impression that BODY damage is of greater concern than STUN damage, and that part has not changed a single bit.

 

Besides, in earlier editions, the most important point of Resistant Defense was the first, since it was required to defend against the STUN damage of a Killing attack; now they are all equal, point for point.

 

Besides, heroes don't usually drop like flies in fiction, and HERO is about cinematic reality anyway.

 

Luckily though, it was well-designed for realism to be "plugged in" rather than "extracted," so it's generally easy to make whatever house rules you want to facilitate the level of reality that you prefer.

 

Rep to Ghost Angel if I can. When we like Hero Books, he's "trying to grab more of our money". When we don't, he's "letting down the fans" and "killing the game". Newsflash: ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is more personally and directly affected by the success or failure of the Hero System than Steve Long. He is, as I understand it, a major (but not the biggest) DoJ investor. He gets his paycheque from work on Hero System. His reputation in his chosen profession hangs on the quality, and the success, of the Hero System. I don't care how much time anyone has invested in playing or running the game (and I'm at over 25 years myself), YOU DO NOT HAVE NEAR THE STAKE STEVE DOES IN HERO SYSTEM.

 

Whether I agree or disagree with his choices (and there are some I vehemently disagree with from 5e and the FAQ's over the years, and some I will doubtless detest from 6e), they are not, in my opinion, without a reasonable basis, and they are not made without fully considering the input of Hero System fandom in general. Good lord, he's actually STILL READING this thread (or at least was up until very recently based on hard evidence from his post), which seems to have a significant component of posts aimed at insulting and offending him. How many of us would show the same forbearance, especially if WE were paying for the costs of providing the forum? As is always the case, it's way easier to criticize than create.

 

Apparantly, I'm in Rant Mode today. Apologies to those suffering through it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't normally post to threads of this sort' date=' but I want to clarify something, just to make sure everyone's clear.[/quote']

 

Kudos (since I have apparently repped you too recently) for being able to read over a thousand posts on this thread and still reply tactfully and civilly, and solely clarify that your defense may be overstating its case.

 

I cannot think of anything that could better demonstrate that, whatever some individuals may believe, you value and pay attention to the input provided by the Hero players and fan base.