6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

An NND allows you to eliminate a character's defenses. The biggest issue I have with FW' date=' which means I'm OK with its removal, is that it cost the same whether the attack was 2d6 or 20d6.[/quote']

 

I agree this is a problem in a superheroic game where you pay points for everything, but in heroic games, where that's not the case, scaling it creates a commensurate set of problems. This is why I've generally disallowed it in supers games, but allowed it in heroic games. I've also traditionally restricted it to 1 halving, or more recently, implemented it as a level of piercing. I understand that the argument for getting rid of it probably revolves around the scaling issue, and the fact that you can build a scalable version with naked advantages, but for heroic games it was, properly managed, very useful. I simply don't want to have to build it from the ground up with naked advantages, or handwave a non-scaling version for heroic games.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree this is a problem in a superheroic game where you pay points for everything' date=' but in heroic games, where that's not the case, scaling it creates a commensurate set of problems. This is why I've generally disallowed it in supers games, but allowed it in heroic games. I've also traditionally restricted it to 1 halving, or more recently, implemented it as a level of piercing. I understand that the argument for getting rid of it probably revolves around the scaling issue, and the fact that you can build a scalable version with naked advantages, but for heroic games it was, properly managed, very useful. I simply don't want to have to build it from the ground up with naked advantages, or handwave a non-scaling version for heroic games.[/quote']

 

Well, there is an alternative to a naked AP advantage with a RSR. You can either have extra skill levels specifically for the purpose of increasing damage, or you can just buy some extra HA dice or KA dice with a skill roll requirement...the net effect(extra damage gets through) is similar. I would figure the net benefit probably shouldn't be larger than the bonus from "haymakering" an attack.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Seems the cost of extra flexibility may be lots of things may be have to be built form the ground up ( yeah figurereds) and maybe lots more thought may have to go into campaign guidelines but we won't know until we see.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

I would have liked to see all these changed, but I can understand why they aren't - none of the alternatives were truly streamlined.

 

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

A good change.

 

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.

A good change, too.

 

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.

This deals with one of my biggest issues with older editions.

 

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.

A bit unexpected, but not a bad idea. It seems to work in Mutants and Masterminds 2e. It will probably also mean that all primary characteristics can get a cost of 1.

 

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

Probably necessary, though point inflation will make fixed-cost powers like Senses and Life Support relatively cheaper.

 

Perception will still be based on INT.

Not entirely happy about this one, but if skill level costs are reduced, it isn't too bad. If skill level costs remain unchanged and INT cost remains 1, though, INT will be much too good a bargain (as it is now).

 

Leaping will no longer be derived from Strength -- it will start at a base amount for all characters, as with Running and Swimming.

Good change.

 

Skills will still be calculated from CHAR/5, but there will be an optional "Toolkitting" note about changing that if desired. Other Toolkitting notes will appear throughout the rules -- no further details on those.

Fair enough, though too many toolkitting options can harm the integrity of the system.

 

Seduction Skill will be renamed Charm.

While I see the reason for this, I'm not sure Charm is the right name. You can seduce with money or promises of power, and neither requires charm. Temptation may fit better.

 

No new Skills will be added, although a couple have been "tweaked" (no more details yet).

No comment until details are known.

 

Package Deal will be renamed Template

No big deal.

 

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.

No big deal, either. I would however like to see a system where skill levels can be used to bypass armor, at least worn armor.

 

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

Probably needed; hope the changes improve matters.

 

Energy Blast and Killing Attack will still be separate forms of Damage, as they are in 5E.

 

The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages.

I think reducing StunX to d3 is overdoing things.

 

You will be able to apply your Normal Defenses to the STUN damage of a Killing Attack whether you have any Resistant Defenses or not.

It has always seemed ridiculous that a single point of rDEF could make so much difference. However, with the new, nerfed StunX die, I would rather see Normal Defenses being ineffective vs. Killing Stun no matter what. nDEF vs. Normal Attacks, rDEF vs. Killing Attacks, with no crossover - what could be simpler?

 

Nothing has changed about the way STR adds to Hand-To-Hand Killling Attack damage.

No comment.

 

Increased reach for larger-than-normal beings and weapons will not necessarily require Stretching -- no further details yet.

It is always nice when simple effects can be made with simple solutions.

 

The method of Adding Damage is supposed to be simplified -- no further details yet.

Is this adding damage with skill levels, or what?

 

he 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.

It is good to see EC go, but I would have liked to see MP and VPP unifiee more. Why is it e.g. impossible to have a Multipower where it takes extra time to switch slots, like you can with VPP?

 

Damage Shield is going to be "different" -- no details yet.

I hope it gets expanded to include ranged attacks, also of the non-physical kind (e.g. "look at me and be struck blind").

 

There will be another, more granular way to make a Power ECV-targeted than using the BOECV Advantage. No specifics given, but it involves breaking the Advantage into its separate components (i.e. ECV Attack Roll, Line Of Sight, etc.) and "reassembling" them to make them more flexible (and simpler according to Steve). Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system.

Sounds good unless it becomes too complex.

 

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

Makes sense. Now we just need to rename Limitations as Disadvantages (opposite of Advantages) - though I guess this will have to wait until 7th editition.

 

There will be a single index, printed in both 6E rulebooks, with a letter code before each number to indicate which book it refers to.

Indexes are good!

 

- Klaus

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I am really curious how CSLs (one of things that sets Hero System apart for me) will work in 6th.

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' there is an alternative to a naked AP advantage with a RSR. You can either have extra skill levels specifically for the purpose of increasing damage, or you can just buy some extra HA dice or KA dice with a skill roll requirement...the net effect(extra damage gets through) is similar. I would figure the net benefit probably shouldn't be larger than the bonus from "haymakering" an attack.[/quote']

 

Increasing damage classes available introduces a separate, commensurate problem for heroic games, which generally operate on a lower plane with a narrower scale than superheroic games. The FW problem is primarily a superheroic genre problem. Introducing the "fix" there introduces problems elsewhere. This is why I prefer the allow/don't allow method to the "must fix it!" method. I won't be doing away with Find Weakness, even if 6E does. I already implement it differently (successful roll = 1 level of piercing and no more). There's no reason for me not to continue doing so. The pedantic need for everything to scale is apropos for games where you pay for everything with points. In games where that's not the case its often more hassle than use.

 

A simple example of the difference:

 

Target: 10 Resistant Defense.

 

A 2d6 RKA with 1 level of find weakness will do no more than 7 body. With 2 levels, no more than 9 body, with 3 levels no more than 11 body. On the average roll 1 level will do 2 body, 2 levels will do 4 body, and 3 levels will do 6 body. This assumes you allow more than one level.

 

A 4d6 RKA (let's assume some sort of deadly blow model), could still do 14 body in one shot. It will happen less often because of the curve, but an average roll, will do 4 body (the same as an average 2d6 RKA roll with 2 levels of FW!) without having to take the half-phases to make X number of phases (which you could theoretically blow).

 

I would rather avoid increasing maximum possible damage where possible.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It is good to see EC go, but I would have liked to see MP and VPP unifiee more. Why is it e.g. impossible to have a Multipower where it takes extra time to switch slots, like you can with VPP?

 

It isn't. Taking "Extra Time" on the Multipower Reserve does exactly that. 5ER, p320 1st column, second paragraph.

[Peregrine]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I am really curious how CSLs (one of things that sets Hero System apart for me) will work in 6th.

 

SWAG: CSLs with All Combat and DCV w/ All Combat will only be useful in a game where some form of Characteristic Maxima (similar to NCM in 5ER) are applicable to the new *CV Characteristics; otherwise, it simply makes more sense to directly increase the relevant *CV Characteristic. (This still opens up the possibility of OCV w/ All Combat...) More limited CSLs, to improve *CV under specific circumstances, will still be appropriate to specialize a character's combat abilities.

 

So I don't expect the changes to be vastly significant.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

SWAG: CSLs with All Combat and DCV w/ All Combat will only be useful in a game where some form of Characteristic Maxima (similar to NCM in 5ER) are applicable to the new *CV Characteristics; otherwise, it simply makes more sense to directly increase the relevant *CV Characteristic. (This still opens up the possibility of OCV w/ All Combat...) More limited CSLs, to improve *CV under specific circumstances, will still be appropriate to specialize a character's combat abilities.

 

So I don't expect the changes to be vastly significant.

 

Keep in mind that CSLs do more than modify CV.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Keep in mind that CSLs do more than modify CV.

 

Exactly, I am wondering how that will be taken into account when it comes to pricing them. I really hope they're not rendered largely irrelevant compared to just buying up CV directly.

[Peregrine]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Keep in mind that CSLs do more than modify CV.

 

I forgot. Increasing damage. I don't think of them in those terms, but that's part of the picture.

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

And you also can't adjust CSL's (i.e. Aid, Drain, etc).

 

OTOH, A character who buys up CSL's and leaves their base at (presumably) 3 would be easy to Block.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

OTOH, A character who buys up CSL's and leaves their base at (presumably) 3 would be easy to Block.

 

Why would you think that? Block targets total OCV, not base OCV.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well, if Seduction is renamed Charm and the "getting some" aspect of the skill is taken out, this does raise the obvious question of what new skill is going to model Casanova, Don Juan, James Bond, femme fatales, succubi, etc.?

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' if Seduction is renamed Charm and the "getting some" aspect of the skill is taken out, this does raise the obvious question of what new skill is going to model Casanova, Don Juan, James Bond, femme fatales, succubi, etc.?[/quote']

 

I haven't seen anything about the description of the skill being changed. Just the name. It being solely about "getting some" hasn't been the case for a while now. Just most people don't realize it due to seeing the name and then not bothering to read the description.

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' if Seduction is renamed Charm and the "getting some" aspect of the skill is taken out, this does raise the obvious question of what new skill is going to model Casanova, Don Juan, James Bond, femme fatales, succubi, etc.?[/quote']

 

I thought the name was just being changed?

[Vondy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' if Seduction is renamed Charm and the "getting some" aspect of the skill is taken out, this does raise the obvious question of what new skill is going to model Casanova, Don Juan, James Bond, femme fatales, succubi, etc.?[/quote']

 

 

I really don't think the rename is apropos. Being charming is very different than enticing someone with favors, money, and/or sex. Nor, despite popular usage, is the concept seducing someone limited merely to sex. Sex is only one possible lure. I guess seducing someone and bribery are fairly similar in this respect. Its just a question of what you are bribing them with. I've traditionally been inclined to create "custom skills" with effects based names. What about creating a homebrew skill "Vamp"?

[Raven.at.night]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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

 

I think this is a mistake. Now , I haven't read every page of the suggestions leading to this, but did anyone recommend using the 3d20-median roll instead?

 

This roll is: roll three d20's, and use only the middle die (i.e. throw out the high and low).

 

Advantages: As fast as 3d6

No math required (a 6 year old can do it!)

A bell-curve that is flatter than 3d6

The average roll is 10.5, so no change in values is required.

 

Disadvantages: ummm you need to dust-off your d20s.

 

 

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

I dislike the lack of granularity in the speed chart low-end. Speed 3 is 50% faster then speed 2, high-end speed changes have less and less additional effect, and there is not much room 'downward'.

 

It works ok for Champions, where 'average' is spd 4-6, much less well for hero-level.

 

I may just double it and implement a 24 phase system or something.

 

Just my thoughts...

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Why would you think that? Block targets total OCV' date=' not base OCV.[/quote']

 

After searching, I now find myself in a "thinking man" position as I ponder where I got that from.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

After searching' date=' I now find myself in a "thinking man" position as I ponder where I got that from.[/quote']

 

Heh. If you figure it out, let me know. Being that I'm pretty good at doing that kind of thing myself I'm always interested in tracking such things down.

 

As far as changes that I'm not planning on implementing go (i.e. entirely different topic than the first part of the post, I'm just too lazy to make a separate post), the only one I can think of off the top of my head is one I've been carrying over for the last several rules versions. I LIKE the -1 OCV for taking a 1/2 move rule, and I don't plan on giving it up.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I really don't think the rename is apropos. Being charming is very different than enticing someone with favors' date=' money, and/or sex. Nor, despite popular usage, is the concept seducing someone limited merely to sex. Sex is only one possible lure. I guess seducing someone and bribery are fairly similar in this respect. Its just a question of what you are bribing them with. I've traditionally been inclined to create "custom skills" with effects based names. What about creating a homebrew skill "Vamp"?[/quote']

 

Or "MacDaddy" or "Playboy" or "Pickup Artist" or whatever is culturally appropriate for the genre setting, I suppose.

 

In both sexual and romantic "conquest", there are arguably 5 stages:

1) making a good initial impression

2) transitioning to some initial commitment(phone number, date, making out, whatever's appropriate)

3) commitment to relationship or commitment to a sexual liaison

4) performance in a relationship context or in a sexual context

5) ending a liaison or relationship gracefully

 

So, I suppose one could take a variety of routes to simulating all of the above:

1) Two skills, Romance and Sex, basically covering all of the above.

2) One skill covering both romance and sex.

3) Multiple skills covering the various stages.

4) using existing skills and potential PS or KS to simulate all this.

5) Doing it solely based on roleplay and situational context (i.e., playing it by ear)

 

It seems like 5 is an option that's always available, so I would lean away from making that the "standard" approach, and offer some kind of skill-based approach which would help in proper genre-simulation.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No changes to the Speed Chart.

 

I dislike the lack of granularity in the speed chart low-end. Speed 3 is 50% faster then speed 2, high-end speed changes have less and less additional effect, and there is not much room 'downward'.

 

It works ok for Champions, where 'average' is spd 4-6, much less well for hero-level.

 

I may just double it and implement a 24 phase system or something.

 

Just my thoughts...

 

You could also just change the base SPD in your heroic games to 4 instead of 2, and call each Segment 2 seconds instead of 1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

YAYAYAYAYAYAY! This fixes the single largest thing that has bugged me about Champions/HERO since 1981.

 

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.

I keep waffling on this one. On the one hand it is a clean implementation. It allows a type of flexibility that previously was difficult to get. On the other hand CV being based on DEX and ECV being based on EGO just makes sense to me. Though probably not for any more reason than I'm used to it.

 

Leaping will no longer be derived from Strength -- it will start at a base amount for all characters, as with Running and Swimming.

Again, sounds reasonable. In the real world at least it isn't the big burly power-lifters that can jump the farthest...

 

 

Nothing has changed about the way STR adds to Hand-To-Hand Killling Attack damage.

 

Again, probably reasonable.

 

I find it hard to fathom why these are viewed as four different items. If it's bad to get free PD when you buy Strength, why isn't it also bad to get Leaping or extra KA damage, or to get OCV or DCV when you buy DEX? These are all abilities that are granted from buying a primary characteristic. If decoupling is the goal, they should all be decoupled.

 

Speaking of things to decouple, do we know whether Growth Momentum and Stretching Momentum damage bonuses were also decoupled?

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I find it hard to fathom why these are viewed as four different items. If it's bad to get free PD when you buy Strength, why isn't it also bad to get Leaping or extra KA damage, or to get OCV or DCV when you buy DEX? These are all abilities that are granted from buying a primary characteristic. If decoupling is the goal, they should all be decoupled.

 

Speaking of things to decouple, do we know whether Growth Momentum and Stretching Momentum damage bonuses were also decoupled?

 

Because OCV and DCV weren't characteristics that could be bought up via a separate mechanism. Until Steve decided to make them characteristics they weren't any different than a Dex roll, aside from what formula was used to determine the value.

 

For me at least decoupling in and of itself was never a goal. Stopping the Secondary Characteristics from being based on the Primaries was. Having leaping not based on Strength also makes sense to me. And now that CVs will be Characteristics in their own right having them not be based on another Characteristic makes sense. And in thinking about it, I can see the sense in makeing them Characteristics in their own right. Though personally I'd also be just fine with them continuing to be simply figured values based on Dex or Ego.

[megaplayboy]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

If you make the 4 CVs characteristics in their own right, you also are likely establishing a "range" of what values are "normal", "competent", "legendary" and "superhuman". And most likely if 6th ed continues the tradition of suggested stat ranges and AP caps for various character levels, then there will be clear OCV and DCV caps, too.

 

Another interesting side-effect of decoupling DEX, SPEED and CV is that you may see more variety wrt "bricks" and "martial artists"...a low-DEX brick with a decent SPD and a high OCV, for example(a Thing type, perhaps?). Or a high DEX and SPD but relatively low CV (a supes clone who doesn't really train for combat but just relies more on natural ability).