Jump to content

6E Rules changes confirmed so far


Recommended Posts

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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. :)

See, I only check my core rules once in a blue moon, because I (mostly) know the rules like the back of my hand.I did rather thoroughly read 5e, but that was ~6 years ago, and now that I don't have that book anymore, I can't even clarify if I am possibly playing with simply outdated rules or if I misread them all those years ago.All the same though, everyone will be on the same general page when 6e comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

See, I only check my core rules once in a blue moon, because I (mostly) know the rules like the back of my hand.I did rather thoroughly read 5e, but that was ~6 years ago, and now that I don't have that book anymore, I can't even clarify if I am possibly playing with simply outdated rules or if I misread them all those years ago.All the same though, everyone will be on the same general page when 6e comes out.

 

Failed your PS: Hero Geek roll, you did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

hummm...

New Oxford American:

 

/Charm/

the power or quality of giving delight or arousing admiration

 

(Thesaurus, Oxford) -

noun

1 people were captivated by her charm attractiveness, beauty, glamour, loveliness; appeal, allure, desirability, seductiveness, magnetism, charisma.

2 these traditions retain a lot of charm appeal, drawing power, attraction, allure, fascination.

3 magical charms spell, incantation, conjuration, magic formula, magic word, mojo, hex.

4 a lucky charm talisman, fetish, amulet, mascot, totem, juju.

verb

1 he charmed them with his singing delight, please, win (over), attract, captivate, allure, lure, dazzle, fascinate, enchant, enthrall, enrapture, seduce, spellbind.

2 he charmed his mother into agreeing coax, cajole, wheedle; informal sweet-talk, soft-soap; archaic blandish.

 

/Seduce/

attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy.

 

(Thesaurus, Oxford) -

verb

1 he took her to his hotel room and tried to seduce her persuade to have sex; euphemistic have one's way with, take advantage of; (dated debauch.)

2 she was seduced by the smell of coffee attract, allure, lure, tempt, entice, beguile, inveigle, maneuver.

 

 

....

 

Charm definitely carries sexual connotations with it, so those aren't removed. Seduce has non-sexual connotations, but doesn't seem to be nearly as broad as Charm.

 

Either way. I can't possibly fathom why it'd be a big deal to change the name from one to the other. They have overlapping aspects. I can't even fathom why it'd be a minor deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

The words “advantage” and “disadvantage” are pretty dang close to direct antonyms linguistics-wise' date=' while they have virtually no correlation in the games mechanics. Why wouldn’t getting rid of an obvious opportunity for misunderstanding, and in the process finding a term that better explains the intended us of one of the mechanics, be a good thing? What, in your opinion, are the [i']other[/i] places that deserve attention in regards to renaming?

 

Well, let's see:

 

Powers. Powers are both the name for the finished build as well as the actual underlying game mechanic used. This creates untold amounts of confusion among new players and would be better served by calling the mechanic what it is rather than calling it a "power" (which, depending on your viewpoint, can also be genre-breaking).

 

Energy Blast. An artifact of the old Champions-era stuff. Needs to be renamed something more appropriate, such as "Ranged Normal Attack" or something. The old term is still appropriate if you're running a superheroic campaign (usually) but if you're running anything else its level of themey-ness doesn't always line up right.

 

In my games I've even gone so far as to call Normal Damage attacks "Impact Damage" and Killing Damage attacks "Lethal Damage", but that's more a case of "helping D&Ders to understand the difference." The comparison works, though, and makes a lot of sense to folks coming from other gaming systems.

 

I disagree that Advantages/Limitations/Disadvantages is confusing, because I know that Advantages only ever apply to Powers, so...for me, there's no real confusion. But I suppose that you could say that.

 

Those are the only real two big ones that come to mind off hand. I'm sure there's other concepts that are difficult to grasp sometimes, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well, let's see:

 

Powers. Powers are both the name for the finished build as well as the actual underlying game mechanic used. This creates untold amounts of confusion among new players and would be better served by calling the mechanic what it is rather than calling it a "power" (which, depending on your viewpoint, can also be genre-breaking).

 

Given the result might be a psychic talent, a spell, a power, a mutation or a super skill, among dozens of other possibilities, I don't think you'll find a name for the mechanic that can't be co-opted into the description. Even "ability" is used in some source material (4400; Heroes), and would be confused with characteristics based on its use in other games.

 

Energy Blast. An artifact of the old Champions-era stuff. Needs to be renamed something more appropriate' date=' such as "Ranged Normal Attack" or something. The old term is still appropriate if you're running a superheroic campaign (usually) but if you're running [i']anything else[/i] its level of themey-ness doesn't always line up right.

 

Isn't that why we name the abilities? Rather than "I attack with my Energy Blast", one simply uses "I fire my pulse cannon", or "I cast my FireBurst". The name of the underlying mechanic couldn't be much less relevant.

 

 

In my games I've even gone so far as to call Normal Damage attacks "Impact Damage" and Killing Damage attacks "Lethal Damage"' date=' but that's more a case of "helping D&Ders to understand the difference." The comparison works, though, and makes a lot of sense to folks coming from other gaming systems.[/quote']

 

So how does that work for you when the PC swings his warhammer (which inflicts lethal damage, despite inflicting it by impact)?

 

I disagree that Advantages/Limitations/Disadvantages is confusing' date=' because I know that Advantages only ever apply to Powers, so...for me, there's no real confusion. But I suppose that you could say that.[/quote']

 

I don't find it confusing either but that's for the same reason - I already know the rules and the jargon. I like the change from the perspective that it will hopefully reduce/remove the "these are bad for my character" perception. "Disadvantages" often provide more fun in game than those cool abilities the character bought with the points he got for being "disadvantaged".

 

Maybe for 7e, all mechanics should just be given random combinations of letters that form non-words rather than risk any connotation from the words chosen ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Given the result might be a psychic talent' date=' a spell, a [b']power[/b], a mutation or a super skill, among dozens of other possibilities, I don't think you'll find a name for the mechanic that can't be co-opted into the description. Even "ability" is used in some source material (4400; Heroes), and would be confused with characteristics based on its use in other games.

 

Hence why I think we should call things like Entangle, Energy Blast, RKA, and such mechanics. That's what they are. Calling them powers creates confusion. I have no problem with calling the finished build a power, a talent, a super-skill, or a blue-finned witcha-didja with cherries on top -- but any time you have something that shares the same name twice like that when the systems are interconnected creates confusion.

 

As a comparison, it's like people who call their computer (the whole box) their "hard drive". The two are completely different things, but for some reason, in their mind, they share the same name, just because one is a part of the other.

 

Once again, I also recognize that HERO gamers are hidebound in their ways and notoriously resistant to change, and I accept that. I'm just saying that I've done it this way as someone who originally grew up with D&D and has had many D&D gamers (and other systems, like Unisystem) play under me. I find that they tend to grok those terms better and thus, it gives them a little bit of an on-ramp to the One True Gaming System. :D

 

Isn't that why we name the abilities? Rather than "I attack with my Energy Blast"' date=' one simply uses "I fire my pulse cannon", or "I cast my FireBurst". The name of the underlying mechanic couldn't be much less relevant.[/quote']

 

That's a personal gaming decision. I've heard both sides of the argument, to keep it as it is "because we've always done it this way" and to change it to a name that more accurately reflects the mechanic being used. I say "Ranged Normal Attack" because that's what it is. A ranged attack that does Normal Damage, just like "Ranged Killing Attack" is a ranged attack that does Killing Damage.

 

So how does that work for you when the PC swings his warhammer (which inflicts lethal damage' date=' despite inflicting it by impact)?[/quote']

 

Again, a personal build choice. I build a warhammer as an HA with a lot of dice, not as an HKA, for the simple reason that you're far more likely to knock someone out with a warhammer than you are with a sword (which by its nature, is a KA). Someone wearing armor is gonna get their bell rung by a warhammer.

 

If I roll a 10d6 HA on someone versus a 1d6+1 KA (by the new rules, so no Stun Lotto), I might do less BODY on average, but I'll certainly get some solid STUN out of it. And yes, I'd build a heavy warhammer as a 10d6 HA.

 

If you wanna build your warhammers as KAs, you're more than welcome to do so. That's your choice as a GM.

 

I don't find it confusing either but that's for the same reason - I already know the rules and the jargon. I like the change from the perspective that it will hopefully reduce/remove the "these are bad for my character" perception. "Disadvantages" often provide more fun in game than those cool abilities the character bought with the points he got for being "disadvantaged".

 

Maybe for 7e, all mechanics should just be given random combinations of letters that form non-words rather than risk any connotation from the words chosen ;)

 

Which is the end desire for 6E, I thought. To reduce confusion and reduce jargon.

 

Meh, we're arguing over a single word. If this were Wikipedia, we'd be linked on Lamest Edit Wars. I have my chosen way of representing it, which I believe works very well, and you have yours. This is why the system is a toolkit, not the whole game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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

I believe so; several variant die rolling mechanisms were proposed. All were discarded; there simply wasn't enough to gain to make it worth the trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In this case' date=' the problem seems to be with penalty skill levels -- not all penalties are equally useful to eliminate. Range penalties (come up all the time) are hardly the equivalent of left-handed weapon use penalties (come up basically never).[/quote']I've never required a penalty for left-handed players or characters. Ever. Seems rather biased to force them into an "offhand" penalty for using their primary hand.

 

Character A has Breakfall at 12-.

Character B has a Familiarity with Breakfall, giving him an 8-.

Character C does not have Breakfall at all but has a DEX Rol of 11-.

 

I do not see how you can allow Character C to make a DEX Roll of greater than 7- to replace Breakfall; otherwise, you are completely undermining buying Familiariaties.

Breakfall also keeps a player from taking damage. I've never allowed a DEX Roll to avoid the damage aspect. Land on their feet? Sure. It'll still hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Maybe for 7e' date=' all mechanics should just be given random combinations of letters that form non-words rather than risk any connotation from the words chosen ;)[/quote']

 

I have a Znwrgz, 12d6, and the GM says that because the NPC has 18 Bgrwb I can't inflict any BODY damage on him. I say he's wrong, because the defense against Znwrgz is Fzaipl, not Bgrwb. Who's right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

Huh? :confused:

 

"OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"?

 

 

I repeat, huh? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Hero system has always used D6's

take that away might as well call it something other than Hero system

if it gives no real difference in how fast to read the dice and no effect on the bell curve

why change?

 

 

The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains' date=' and it will continue to be "roll-low."[/b']

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I believe he was referring to the idea that CSLs aren't "true CVs" as they a not Persistent.

 

So? What does that have to do with it?

 

I've never been in a situation in a game where that has been an issue. I'm not even sure persistence is really relevant to the concept of CVs. Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Huh? :confused:

 

"OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"?

 

 

I repeat, huh? :confused:

 

Does an Overall CSL currently cost more or less than raising your DEX enough to increase your overall CV by one? Just curious and can't look it up at the moment.

 

Has there been any indication that raising OCV or DCV is nearly as costly as Overall CSLs? I'm assuming you buy them up separately when they are Characteristics of their own, so you can build a character with low OCV (can't hit the broad side of a barn) and a high DCV (virtually impossible to hit) without having to adjust the new-decoupled DEX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

you will now need to buy 2 levels(ocv and dcv) to get the effect of raising both by only buying more Dex

 

if the price of levels stays the same it will now cost 10 pts to get the effect of raising your Dex by 3(9 pts)(whether these levels will be constant or not remains to be seen)

this also does not take into account the 0.3 speed and 3/5 of the way on raising a dex roll

 

 

Huh? :confused:

 

"OCV and DCV couldn't be bought up via a separate mechanism"?

 

 

I repeat, huh? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

A little story of Ye Olden Days to illustrate a question I have about Perception.

 

Once upon a time onthe old GEnie computer network, before everything was done on the Internet, I asked about someone writing up characters based on many of the Warner Brothers cartoon characters as huiman supers. The odd thing in the writeups I get back (which I sadly no longer have) was that The Coyote, self-described "Suuuper-Genius!", had an INT of 3! When I asked the guy about tit, he explained that his INT was so low for one purpose: so that he could fail Perception rolls. In the mechanic of that day (early in the day of 4th Edition) it was the only way to do that effect.

 

So imagine I want a character like that in the 6ed rules: a guy with a boatload of INT-based skills at decent-=to-high levels but with incredibly poor Perception. How will I be able to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Does an Overall CSL currently cost more or less than raising your DEX enough to increase your overall CV by one? Just curious and can't look it up at the moment.

 

Has there been any indication that raising OCV or DCV is nearly as costly as Overall CSLs? I'm assuming you buy them up separately when they are Characteristics of their own, so you can build a character with low OCV (can't hit the broad side of a barn) and a high DCV (virtually impossible to hit) without having to adjust the new-decoupled DEX.

 

Overall CSL? What's that? :confused:

 

Do you mean a CSL with all combat? 'Cause the only place I've seen the term "Overall" used is with Skill Levels, which are another animal entirely.

 

IIRC, All-Combat CSLs cost 8 points (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). So depending on your viewpoint, they're either 2 points more expensive (since generally you only need to raise your DEX by 2 to jump to the next CV) or 1 point cheaper (9 points give you +3 DEX which gives you a full +1 CV).

 

CSLS go up in scope from one specific attack to all combat, with increasing cost as you go up.

 

If for some reason you wanted to create a character that had a high DEX but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it (God knows why), you could buy a PhysLim (Can't Hit The Broad Side of a Barn) that inflicted CV penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

you will now need to buy 2 levels(ocv and dcv) to get the effect of raising both by only buying more Dex

 

Or by buying CSLs.

 

if the price of levels stays the same it will now cost 10 pts to get the effect of raising your Dex by 3(9 pts)(whether these levels will be constant or not remains to be seen)

this also does not take into account the 0.3 speed and 3/5 of the way on raising a dex roll

 

Where are you getting the price of levels from? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

A little story of Ye Olden Days to illustrate a question I have about Perception.

 

Once upon a time onthe old GEnie computer network, before everything was done on the Internet, I asked about someone writing up characters based on many of the Warner Brothers cartoon characters as huiman supers. The odd thing in the writeups I get back (which I sadly no longer have) was that The Coyote, self-described "Suuuper-Genius!", had an INT of 3! When I asked the guy about tit, he explained that his INT was so low for one purpose: so that he could fail Perception rolls. In the mechanic of that day (early in the day of 4th Edition) it was the only way to do that effect.

 

So imagine I want a character like that in the 6ed rules: a guy with a boatload of INT-based skills at decent-=to-high levels but with incredibly poor Perception. How will I be able to do that?

 

Um, A PhysLim: Perceptive as a Brick, that inflicts PER penalties on the character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Overall CSL? What's that? :confused:

 

Do you mean a CSL with all combat? 'Cause the only place I've seen the term "Overall" used is with Skill Levels, which are another animal entirely.

 

I think we just had a Belkar moment here....

 

That is what I meant, of course. But the terminology was what i cam up with working from memory. Looks like my Fiver PDF needs to get some work.

 

That said, the PhysLim approach seems a bit clumsy. I"m not convinced that the mechanic really fits the goal of imposing direct stat penalties as opposed to providing global restrictions on the character (like Blind or Deaf, which impose several quantified and non-quantified restrictions on characters, or Unfamiliar with Earth that provides numerous social handicaps that cannot be overcome by willpower). I can't help but wish for something more elegant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

A little story of Ye Olden Days to illustrate a question I have about Perception.

 

Once upon a time onthe old GEnie computer network, before everything was done on the Internet, I asked about someone writing up characters based on many of the Warner Brothers cartoon characters as huiman supers. The odd thing in the writeups I get back (which I sadly no longer have) was that The Coyote, self-described "Suuuper-Genius!", had an INT of 3! When I asked the guy about tit, he explained that his INT was so low for one purpose: so that he could fail Perception rolls. In the mechanic of that day (early in the day of 4th Edition) it was the only way to do that effect.

 

So imagine I want a character like that in the 6ed rules: a guy with a boatload of INT-based skills at decent-=to-high levels but with incredibly poor Perception. How will I be able to do that?

 

Buy Intelligence with the Limitation: Doesn't affect Perception Rolls.

 

Edit: Wile E. Coyote failed a lot of Intellect Skill Rolls, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Overall CSL? What's that? :confused:

 

Do you mean a CSL with all combat? 'Cause the only place I've seen the term "Overall" used is with Skill Levels, which are another animal entirely.

 

IIRC, All-Combat CSLs cost 8 points (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). So depending on your viewpoint, they're either 2 points more expensive (since generally you only need to raise your DEX by 2 to jump to the next CV) or 1 point cheaper (9 points give you +3 DEX which gives you a full +1 CV).

 

CSLS go up in scope from one specific attack to all combat, with increasing cost as you go up.

 

Under the current rules, I would pay 5 points for a +1 DCV level (which would be nonpersistent, and eliminated rather than halved if I was stunned), and then probably buy an 8 point combat level, with a limitation "only for OCV" which, presumably, should drop the price to 5 like an "only for DCV" level. 10 points.

 

But I wouldn't actually do that, since I could buy +3 DEX, No Figured for 6 points, get the same OCV and DCV, improve my DEX skills and rolls and enhance my initiative order.

 

The components of DEX in 5er are overpriced, or DEX is underpriced. Hopefully, 6e will see the balance perfected, or at least improved. Removing OCV, DCV and SPD from DEX is a good step to removing this huge discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...