6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm thinking it's going to look weird with starting characters having huge point totals. I mean, 250 to 350 took some getting used to, and I imagine this will require a bigger jump. Not that it's functionally or logically any different... it'll just look funny.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I mean' date=' 250 to 350 took some getting used to, and I imagine this will require a bigger jump.[/quote']

Hm. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised by it only being something like 350 to 400.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm thinking it's going to look weird with starting characters having huge point totals. I mean' date=' 250 to 350 took some getting used to, and I imagine this will require a bigger jump. Not that it's functionally or logically any different... it'll just look funny.[/quote']

 

Really? Huh. That change never even caused me to pause.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I suppose if someone not only never changed their Figureds from their base, and never even looked at them I could almost see a claim for added complication. But that still seems pretty thin, at least to me.

 

I know you can't grasp it. That's why I said everything is perception rather than go over it again.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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 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.

 

I actually feel that the rule is a bit buried and many old school Hero GM's either aren't aware of the rule, or skimmed it and it hasn't filtered through their consciousness during a game. I am mostly trying to point out how the new rule can not only fill in for said missing Stat, but how the Talent could possibly be a better mechanic than the one that is there.

 

Also I find that many GM's esp Male GM's are very reluctant to deal with anything that touches on physical attraction and those kind of relationships. With that I haven't seen much use of the Seduction skill. So in most games I have been in COM is seen as "Ok you have an 18com. Ok, yeah, whatever". So a mechanic that spelled out that a Character has +whatever vs Interaction skills vs folk that find the person with said talent cute, beautiful, ugly, whatever, would be a nice change. Something that is explicit on the Character sheet in that way is easier. Also I am thinking that the Talent might clean up the ugliness mechanic as well.

 

Most of the posts I am seeing on this is all 'sky is falling down' kind of hysteria. No one is really taking a close look at this beyond the fact that Hero is removing a favorite mechanic. No one seems to be looking at how they could make this work in their game. Anyone who does is attacked again and again.

 

Tasha

 

All I care about is that the Mechanics work out so my game play works out as well as it did before. So I probably wouldn't have complained about KA's Stun mults being nerfed too hard, if it didn't look like the new numbers weren't going to mess up every non-champions game that I either run or participate in.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hm. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised by it only being something like 350 to 400.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. I wasn't thinking too well when I posted that. Come to think of it, I don't think it'll go higher than 450 for a standard super, and probably only that high if there are other changes that affect character building costs.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Really? Huh. That change never even caused me to pause.

 

Took me a little bit to get used to having that extra hundred points to play with. Not a lot, but a 350 pt. 5th Edition character looks a lot less sparse than a 250 pt. 4th Edition character. The disconnect this time probably won't be as much. We're just going to be spending a few extra points to get to the same level of character that we're used to now.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Took me a little bit to get used to having that extra hundred points to play with. Not a lot' date=' but a 350 pt. 5th Edition character looks a lot less sparse than a 250 pt. 4th Edition character. The disconnect this time probably won't be as much. We're just going to be spending a few extra points to get to the same level of character that we're used to now.[/quote']

 

Shortly after 4th came out we started using 350 as the standard base for Supers. So I was already used to it by the time 5e came out.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

INCOMING!!! TAKE COVER!!!

 

Actually, that's a good question. With the expected increase of recommended starting points, will the guidelines for awarding XPs per session also need to be inflated?

 

Hell, I can't even get most GM's to follow the PUBLISHED XP guildlines as they are now. XP should be rewarded 1 for the PC's being in the adventure. +1 exp for every session beyond the first one that the PCs attend. Then there are bonuses for Role playing +1, and for having a successful adventure +1

 

So at the minimum MOST good RPing players should get 2-3 XP per session with bonuses to that number if the adventure runs longer.

 

I say this because. 1) MOST players do a decent job of RPing their Characters. 2) MOST adventures have the Players either solving a mystery or the adventure is a resounding (they had fun)

 

If you are stingy about XP then the Players start to feel constrained by a never changing character. New skills/powers/Talent become forever out of reach. Some of your players may start to do major rewrites every few months to incorporate changes and the miniscule XP rewards into their character.

 

Basically IMHO Players having fun should be rewarded.

 

Though I think that many Hero GM's are secretly afraid of dealing with escalation of power levels. So they don't properly reward their characters.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

 

He mentioned that as a definite possibility in a podcast interview around the time he started writing 6e.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

Not exactly. As I mentioned in my post, in my implementation it's only COM above 10 that would add to a PRE score. COM below 10 would subtract from it, so a COM of 6 would actually reduce PRE for the purposes I described by 4 points.

 

What you describe would have been a consequence of the original rule from Golden Age of Champions which I disagreed with, hence changed.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Took me a little bit to get used to having that extra hundred points to play with. Not a lot' date=' but a 350 pt. 5th Edition character looks a lot less sparse than a 250 pt. 4th Edition character. The disconnect this time probably won't be as much. We're just going to be spending a few extra points to get to the same level of character that we're used to now.[/quote']

 

Actually in 4th edition my group had upped the point totals to 300 because we liked to buy skills, and in 4th edition there were a ton of skills to round characters out with and our characters had been 250pt characters that were mostly powers. So going to 350 was an easy change.

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The change in point level thing is really meaningless; you can make your campaign anything you want it to be, the point values are completely optional suggestions.

 

I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

 

See above on point values. The game you design is what determines points people need, not the rule book. There's nothing even remotely implied that these point levels are mandatory.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Not exactly. As I mentioned in my post, in my implementation it's only COM above 10 that would add to a PRE score. COM below 10 would subtract from it, so a COM of 6 would actually reduce PRE for the purposes I described by 4 points.

 

What you describe would have been a consequence of the original rule from Golden Age of Champions which I disagreed with, hence changed.

 

The issue with that system is that super ugly people can cause fear or at least be unsettling, and should get a BONUS to their interaction rolls in certain cirumstances.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm hoping that Steve reduces the default values for Disadvantages -- Complications. I always hated trying to come up with 150 pts of them.

I'm sort of fond of limiting Disads/whatever to a specific number (say, 5) with no particular limit on points. It encourages you to take the bigger disads, and means you don't have so many disads you can't keep track of them all.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The change in point level thing is really meaningless; you can make your campaign anything you want it to be' date=' the point values are completely optional suggestions.[/quote']

 

Until you run at a convention and start to get a stack of characters written for the published "norms" or you gain a new player who has a pile of characters written for the published "norms"

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm sort of fond of limiting Disads/whatever to a specific number (say' date=' 5) with no particular limit on points. It encourages you to take the bigger disads, and means you don't have so many disads you can't keep track of them all.[/quote']

 

IN a well written up campaign world, with a PC that has a good background I rarely have trouble coming up with 150pts in disads. When I have issues then I know that I haven't really thought out the character well.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I do hope that there is at least an optional variant to mental powers wrt breakout rolls: EGO vs. EGO, rather than just making an EGO roll, -1/5 pts over.

In a low-powered supers game or a fantasy game, 8d6 of mental illusions, telepathy or mind control typically has a 62% chance of failing right off the bat, IME. That's ridiculous. But if you replace the straight EGO roll with a contested roll (say, with the limitation that the mentalist cannot attack anyone else while maintaining the power), then it becomes considerably more likely to work. The PCs can still overcome this in all the usual ways--attacking the mentalist to force them to stop maintaining the power, putting some points into mental defense or a bonus to breakout rolls, raising their ego score to get a better chance, etc.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The change in point level thing is really meaningless; you can make your campaign anything you want it to be, the point values are completely optional suggestions.

 

 

 

See above on point values. The game you design is what determines points people need, not the rule book. There's nothing even remotely implied that these point levels are mandatory.

 

I didn't know this. Thanks!

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Until you run at a convention and start to get a stack of characters written for the published "norms"

 

Which is one of the reasons why I would never run a "Bring your own character" event at a convention.

 

or you gain a new player who has a pile of characters written for the published "norms"

 

Yes, but shouldn't they still have to rebuild the character to fit your campaign guidelines?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

And so, on to 6E:

 

----------------------

 

The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains, and it will continue to be "roll-low."

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

Movement will continue to be measured per Phase.

 

All fine.

 

All measurements will be given in meters. There will be no use of "hexes" or any other mapping arrangement in 6E.

 

(shrug) Hexes and the one inch=2m shorthand made things simple on a tabletop, but I'm not going to worry too much about this one.

 

Comeliness will no longer be one of the Characteristics. It's being replaced with a Talent, Striking Appearance, which a given group can choose to use in their game if they want a character's appearance to have a mechanical effect.

 

Attractiveness is very subjective, so I'm not heartbroken about it going away as a stat. I liked COM, I use COM, but could see attractiveness being done as limited PRE.

 

All the other Characteristics will remain, but none of them will be "Figured," i.e. derived from other Characteristics. They'll all start with a base value that must be bought up separately. The costs of some of them have been "tweaked" -- no further details yet.

 

OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately.

 

Suggested starting point totals will be raised to compensate for the change to Characteristics -- no specifics yet.

 

Will see how this washes out. Would like to have had it playtested, but...

 

Some new Powers have been added, and others have been removed. The only one mentioned is Find Weakness, which is being removed. There will be no official way to reduce Defenses below 1/2 as with Armor Piercing.

 

I've used it, but it was an orphan mechanic. I'd be OK to see it go away. Likewise if Danger Sense was altered to be a specific kind of Detect/Per roll.

 

Adjustment Powers have been significantly reworked -- no further details yet.

 

That will be interesting to hear about. Maybe requiring something SFX based?

 

The Multipower and VPP Frameworks will remain, but Elemental Control is being replaced by a new Limitation, Unified Power (no value given). Aside from GM oversight there will be no restrictions on what Unified Power can be applied to.

 

And presumably everything with Unified Power will be drained, etc. at the same time (see: Adjustment Power changes)

 

Disadvantages are being renamed Complications, and Psychological Limitations will become Psychological Complications.

 

Should have been done in 1st ed. Advantages and Disadvantages not being opposites was needlessly confusing. "Complications" also helps emphasize that they should be used for plot purposes IMO.

[NestorDRod]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hmm, Disads...

 

I have a real aversion to spurious Disads (e.g., PsychLims used to describe personality traits as opposed to true disadvantages). So I've had the experience a number of times of not being able to total up to the max number for the campaign.

 

In those cases, I just play the character at that level. I've had players look at me funny when I say my character's only 225 when everyone else is 250. I'm not going to add what I believe are BS Disads to come up to some arbitrary number. If it comes to that, just give me the damn points and move on.

 

What bothers me is when concept goes up against math and loses. The Ambidexterity anecdote I gave up-thread is an example. 9 points for something that may come up maybe once in a whole campaign.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Yes, but shouldn't they still have to rebuild the character to fit your campaign guidelines?

 

Granted. Though sometimes GM's need to take a look at their assumptions about their game and see if perhaps they aren't being too restrictive. New players sometimes can be a catalyst for change that your players secretly want, but don't want ot mention because it might hurt your feelings or they are sick of arguing with you about said changes.

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hmm, Disads...

 

I have a real aversion to spurious Disads (e.g., PsychLims used to describe personality traits as opposed to true disadvantages). So I've had the experience a number of times of not being able to total up to the max number for the campaign.

 

In those cases, I just play the character at that level. I've had players look at me funny when I say my character's only 225 when everyone else is 250. I'm not going to add what I believe are BS Disads to come up to some arbitrary number. If it comes to that, just give me the damn points and move on.

 

What bothers me is when concept goes up against math and loses. The Ambidexterity anecdote I gave up-thread is an example. 9 points for something that may come up maybe once in a whole campaign.

 

Well there are levels of Ambidexterity. Not every person who is ambi is completely ambi. So if it's just flavor then just spend the minimum on it. If they have 2 weapons and 2 weapon fighting and the other talents taht make it work. Then 9pts is about right

 

I like finding those last 25 pts. It really makes me delve into their history and psychology. Sometimes what I have to add gives something very important to the character's background, another hook. Which is never a bad thing.

 

Also Remember they are now going to be "complications" they don't have to cripple the character to be valid.