6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I allow COM to be used as a complimentary skill roll for pretty much any interaction skill where it's appropriate. I've even allowed a COM Attack, a PRE attack based on COM rather than PRE with more limited utility.

 

I've also seen campaigns where no Interaction skill use is permitted at all, because the GM believes such things should be role played without mechanics.

 

I'm not happy to see COM go. However, it's my hope that having more clearly defined mechanical utility for the Striking Appearance talent will be some compensation.

 

 

NotI 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' date=' 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 [b']subtract[/b] 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.

[GamePhil]

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.

 

My favorite use of COM was a house rule, where it breaks DEX ties for initiative (well, after SPD, INT, and maybe something else), with the explanation that the camera naturally goes to the better looking people first.

 

Or something like that. I see nothing wrong with comparing levels of Striking Appearance and say the camera goes to the most interesting looking person first.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You want to brainwash me' date=' you'd better start by spelling my name right. [/quote']

 

Dangnabit. Another perfectly good evil plan blown by typos.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

As I said oh so many pages ago' date=' Steve confirmed that Unified Power can be used for recoupling CHAR and that it's not limited to END-based powers.[/quote']

 

 

I understand but without seeing what he's done we know its possible but that's about it. I'm pretty sure my thoughts will be able to be done but exactly how is another question.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

Aargh. You try to escape, but they drag you back in...

 

I see your point. My problem is the approach taken to formulate the cost.

 

The only way I can explain my feelings in this regard is anecdotally.

 

I had a character whose concept included the fact that he was Ambidextrous. I paid the 3 points for it (back in 4th Edition), even though I knew the chances of it coming up in the game were slim and none. And Slim had left town. (BTW, I was right in that assessment; it never came up in the three years the game was played).

 

So when I saw that Ambidexterity had been pumped up to 9 points in 5th I groaned. Why? Just because it was "built" as CSLs and therefore had to match that cost structure? With all due respect, screw that noise.

 

For that matter, I, as a long-time player of Hero System, look at Perfect Pitch and see nothing wrong in asking "Why the heck does it cost 3 points?" Because it was built as a Skill Level (or whatever it's built as; I don't have the rulebook with me)? Please.

 

That is the trend I've been noticing. And it is the direction my playing style is definitely not going towards. So I find myself seeing the game I spent many years enjoying drifting away. And it makes me sad.

[NestorDRod]

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.

 

Heh. That's what I get for responding before reading the rest of the posts.

 

See my previous post for my thoughts regarding Ambidexterity. Bottom line, I'm right there wit'cha, sir.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Yeah' date=' and now you'll pay points for the equivalent of 18 COM and have it actually MEAN something[b'] to me [/b]in game terms.

 

JG

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I get sooooooooooooooo tired of people saying that COM means nothing, does nothing, nobody ever uses it.

 

I do.

 

So PLEASE do not make your sweeping statements without those two words - 'to me' - so that you are not shoving your tenedncies down my throat.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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).

 

Well, depends on setting and the sfx of the ability. Though at least some people have trained themselves to be functionally ambidextrous to be able memorize reams of data perfectly or to speed read in reality so it's not off the charts in a cinemti fiction, IMO. I don't there's really a hard and fast place to put many things. Powers can be stuff you're trained or learned to do, incredibly impressive knacks, etc. Talent can be inborn, trained, blessings from external sources.

 

While I wouldn't, an argument could be made for dropping Talents, renaming Powers to something evocative of the superhero genre and using the existing Talents as example builds in the section for low level cinematic shticks.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There's also the cynical point of view that says if you can just eyeball a point value for a Talent' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Careful, Rod.

 

Mention that sort of heresy loud enough and people might start thinking about it seriously, and then where would all that effort to build these beautifully balanced rules be?

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Compromises can have purposes' date=' but only if it's the right compromise. While I was in favor of removing Com, [b']to me [/b]Com as an optional characteristic is worse than Com as a standard characteristic.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Vulcan]

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']

 

That's funny, I've seen several on this thread. Not to mention all the times it got said on the other thread.

 

And no, I'm not going to wade through that morass to provide links or cites.

[OddHat]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I see your point. My problem is the approach taken to formulate the cost.

 

[snip groovy anecdotes]

 

That is the trend I've been noticing. And it is the direction my playing style is definitely not going towards. So I find myself seeing the game I spent many years enjoying drifting away. And it makes me sad.

 

I know where you're coming from. My GM Answer is that I don't charge for things that probably won't show up in play, unless and until they do. If you want your character to be Ambidextrous, and I don't think that will ever be important, I'll ask you to note it on the sheet and then not charge points for it until the day comes when you need it. At that point, we'll work something out, probably with unspent XPs or a Power Skill roll.

 

My Old School Player feeling is that damn it, I want it on my sheet, and I want to pay the points, because this character is living in my head and the points make him real!

 

I try not to tell that to family members, because they'd make me see a therapist.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

That's.... highly disappointing to hear.

 

It makes it sound like Steve went into this with his mind made up about COM and that all my efforts to try and save it were... pointless. No so much from the 'I lost' standpoint, but from the 'I never had a chance' standpoint.

 

Somehow I doubt this is true. It ascribes a level of malice to Steve that I doubt really exists. I prefer to think that he looked at both sides and (for whatever reason) decided the 'anti-COM' side was right.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

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

 

So the simple fact that a charcter had a 20 COM never ever affected the way your character acted around them?

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

'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.

 

Okay, so I lied....

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Who did the pro-COM folk think they were offering a compromise to, or who would accept, or what the result of it would be?

 

Well Steve started the threads saying "give me your thoughts on the 6th edition rules" and made it clear he was inclined to eliminate the stat entirely, I should think the conclusion is pretty obvious.

 

Your statement clearly implies that you (yes, YOU from the "losing side" ) cannot roleplay without a COM CHAR, regardless of the fact that physical beauty STILL EXISTS IN THE RULES.

 

What you infer is out of my control, but I simply feel bad for someone who thought comeliness served no purpose and did nothing whatsoever. In the rules the use of Comeliness was written up in several places and in the discussion there were dozens of examples how to use the stat in a game. Someone saying that it did nothing seems plainly to be the victim of poor GMing and/or role playing.

 

I'm not trying to argue for the return of Comeliness, I just honestly do feel bad for people who were in games that seemed to miss the point of the stat so totally and miss out on all the gaming they could have done but apparently never were exposed to.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Okay' date=' so I lied....[/quote']

 

Tell me about it.

 

I've sworn off this thread like three times and it keeps dragging me back.

 

It's a forum black hole!

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That's.... highly disappointing to hear.

 

It makes it sound like Steve went into this with his mind made up about COM and that all my efforts to try and save it were... pointless. No so much from the 'I lost' standpoint, but from the 'I never had a chance' standpoint.

 

Somehow I doubt this is true. It ascribes a level of malice to Steve that I doubt really exists. I prefer to think that he looked at both sides and (for whatever reason) decided the 'anti-COM' side was right.

 

He very openly said in the post that started the Characteristics 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 )."

 

There wasn't any malice involved. He stated his intention in the matter, and noted that he was open to being convinced otherwise. Presumably since he has stated that Com is being replaced by a Talent he didn't see any arguments that he found convincing enough.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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

 

 

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...

 

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

 

 

Well, if I'd written 5e there wouldn't be ANY complaints about the content - it wouldn't be finished yet

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That's funny' date=' I've seen several [i']on this thread.[/i] Not to mention all the times it got said on the other thread.

 

And no, I'm not going to wade through that morass to provide links or cites.

 

I think you are confusing people noting the lack of well defined effects written into the core rules for Com with them telling you that you don't use it. The two aren't the same. I've seen the former in this thread, I've not seen the later.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This'll hurt... *steps into fire zone*

 

What does Comliness do By Itself?

Not, how can it be used, but What Mechanical Effect On Its Own does Comliness provide?

I know about it's Complimentary properties, those are well documented and well used.

 

A look at the 5E Characteristic Block:

STR - Lift, Damage, Figured

DEX - Combat Order, CVs, Figured, Agility Skills

CON - Stunned Threshold, Figured

BODY - Death Threshold, Figured

INT - Perception, Intellect Skills

EGO - ECVs, EGO Effect Threhold, PRE Attack Defense

PRE - Presence Attacks, PRE Attack Defense, Interaction Skills

COM - . . . . .

 

Comliness seems to be a Complimentary Roll Only. It provides no other function like every other Characteristic manages to do.

 

the Comliness Roll does all kinds of things. Comliness by itself provides no Mechanical aspect. You could move that to a Background Skill and get the same thing.

 

*leaves the firing zone and won't be responding to answers to this or anything else involving Comliness because Ghost-Angel doesn't give that much of a crap*

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Comeliness: Complimentary skill roll to Interaction skills, Comeliness roll which would allow for skills to be based on it. Measure of physical appearance granular enough to have character be different without nessecarily having major mechanical effect (For example: The Mary Ann vs Ginger effect. They might near idenetical Comeliness scores but Ginger is more effective at using her thanks to having more Interaction skills than largely guileless Mary Ann but Mary Ann's attractiveness does effect people's reaction to her). That's one the things I found interesting and flexible about Comeliness.

 

Having little function not the same as having no function. It has a limited function. OTOH, it does provide a skill roll that could be used to base PS or other skills on or just for raw rolls (say to distract someone with your appearance). Personally, I don't mind that it was mostly Complimentary. Con without figures is a Stun meter, Body is hit points. The only reason they have a higher cost if they are useful in combat. As it stood, it probably shouldn't have had a huge impact without a cost increase.

 

I found Com to be useful in role playing as well as its mechanical function. That it worked differently from other characteristics doesn't seem a compelling reason to drop it. No other Primary Characteristic aside from Body can be lowered by a common mechanic (normal and killing damage). It has unique function and lacks one of the functions of most of the others (rolls as I can't think of what a Body roll might be that doesn't seem to more suited to a Con roll but then I can think of skills where Com would be rolled).

 

To turn it around, as far as I saw no compelling reasons given for hacking out something people used rather than say expanding on it (and related material) from anyone that proposed it, including Steve Long. Some potential for expansion has come up in almost every discussion of the "Com problem" even this one so it can't be difficult. Unfortunately, it's Steve Long ball and he can what he wants to with it and decided on the surgeon's solution. Mores the pity in this case as it seems like the best that' going to come of it for me is a lateral move (this Talent does everything Comeliness did) and change for changes sake which brings in a Talent I'd either have to retrofit into almost every single character in my games, work hacking something back in or another reason to just stick with what I currently have going.

 

Edit: My main thought on why its a characteristic is that appearance is something every character has in some form or another. Other perceive them and there is some chance, how ever small, that appearance will effect their reaction. Even if it they consider the character "homely" that might make them sympathetic. The lower your Com score, the less likely that is (to the agree the skill rolls can reflect that, it's a granularity issue) with actively, negatively ugly beginning at 0. The negative Comeliness costs point idea was a bad way to handle that and needed to be revised, IMO. I'd say it should have started to negatively affect your Interaction rolls and effect role play at that point.

[schir1964]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Repeatedly. And with a fair amount of hostility. "No one uses COM so it must GO!" was the mantra' date=' no matter how many of us pointed out that we, in fact, [i']did[/i] use COM.

I'm going to keep asking this.

 

Who specifically gave this "Mantra" that "... so it must GO!".

 

If accusations like this are going to be made about a general group of people, I'm going to want specific names and who you are including in this group.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[James Gillen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That's.... highly disappointing to hear.

 

It makes it sound like Steve went into this with his mind made up about COM and that all my efforts to try and save it were... pointless. No so much from the 'I lost' standpoint, but from the 'I never had a chance' standpoint.

 

Somehow I doubt this is true. It ascribes a level of malice to Steve that I doubt really exists. I prefer to think that he looked at both sides and (for whatever reason) decided the 'anti-COM' side was right.

 

The problem is that Steve IS the anti-COM side. It was mentioned many, many times in the debate that Steve already DID produce rules in The Ultimate Skill that clarified how COM is to be used as a Modifier to Interaction Skills. But then according to his logic, if COM is more of a modifier to PRE than an actual Characteristic, it should be treated as such. Thus the logic for making appearance a Talent. I agree with him here if nowhere else (and from what I see of SixEd I may NOT agree with him anywhere else).

 

So yeah, you already have rules for using COM as a stat. The issue is that these still weren't good enough for Steve in his own mind to keep justifying COM's status as a Characteristic.

 

JG

[Vulcan]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think you are confusing people noting the lack of well defined effects written into the core rules for Com with them telling you that you don't use it. The two aren't the same. I've seen the former in this thread' date=' I've not seen the later.[/quote']

 

The problem is that they aren't saying there a no well designed mechaincs, they are saying there are no mechanics. Likewise, they do not say that they do not use it, they say no one uses it; that it has no function rather than little function.

 

I get tired of hearing it. Am I being overly critical? Perhaps. But come on, how hard is it to say "I never used COM" - which is likely true - as opposed to "No one used COM" - which is obviously false.

 

Unless Nexus, Steamteck, Balabanto (for all his problems with it being abused, at least his players used it) and I - not to mention our entire gaming groups - are suddely 'no one', which is frankly kind of insulting.